the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Decisions we don’t need your help with

Posted by Jeff Id on July 10, 2011

One of the several ignorant things that president Bush did was sign a law banning incandescent lights. Yes it came from a liberal House and Senate but he did sign it. It looks like the House will send a repeal of it up for vote shortly but it won’t likely get past our anti-economic growth president. In the past, I’ve made the point that incandescent bulbs are wonderfully efficient distributed heaters. Lubos Motl also made the point, humorously referring to them as heatballs which happen to produce some light to indicate they are working. Of course, plenty of others have made this point as well.

As an engineer, these concepts are very familiar. The problem is that ‘all of the above‘ greens saw an incandescent lamp’s efficiency of under 5% energy conversion to visible light and decided that we could save the world incrementally with one step being the banning of the incandescent light.

First, even if you accept IPCC CO2 global warming sensitivity values, I flatly deny that the microscopic improvement in CO2 savings by the ban is worth consideration. Even replacing all the incandescent lights in the world with CFL tomorrow won’t make a detectable difference in atmospheric CO2. Shutting off all the lights might, but even most hardcore greens usually would not support that.

Unfortunately, the recognition by non-thinkers of the truly crappy first order efficiency of the incandescent lamp, is giving the heatballs a bad rap. It is the anti-progress, self-titled progressives though, which took that misunderstanding to the next level to declare the incandescent light bulb — illegal. Make no mistake, despite the EPA lies on the subject, this decision adds cost. CFL or LED lamps will not save one penny for a large number of us in the US.  What’s worse,  it will save immeasurably little CO2 emission globally and it will directly eliminate jobs while (of course) adding to the Federal government. On simplistic terms, all economic loads over and above the lowest cost options already in use, take jobs and limit personal wealth and economic growth. I wish more people got that.

Still, there are plenty of applications where CFL and even LED make sense, but as America has repeatedly proven to the ever-deaf left, the market is astoundingly capable of making those decisions. Sure idiots will get the choice wrong sometimes, but as history has repeatedly shown, the bulk of the population will balance cost/efficiency in the right direction.

In the northern climates, a low light-efficiency bulb is almost perfectly 100% heat efficient. They are better than your furnace for warming your room because there is no chimney. People tell me I’m crazy for not turning off lamps in the winter. I’m going green though folks, my furnace uses fossil fuel, the electric here is mostly nuclear. Leaving my incandescent light on warms the room more, runs the furnace less and saves CO2 emissions!

Of course in the summer, we do run the crap out of our central heat pump so when we put 100 watts into the room, we have to then pump that 100 watts out – ouch. But then you just need to have enough brains to flip the switch – or use more CFL in the summer if you are bothered by your energy consumption. While the average public doesn’t think deeply about such things, my guess is that even the most cynical would state that the normal population understands to flip the switch when the electric bill is too high.

Again though, I’m spending my money this summer for electric at my option, and it is primarily Uranium that we burn, it is my choice how much to spend and where to apply the energy we bought, not yours.  Trust us, we will figure out what is best and if you push us the wrong way too hard, we will simply light/heat our houses by whatever means we find convenient.

Of course one of the main additional problems we face from green idealism is that we’re not allowed to build new power plants despite rising energy consumption. How stupid are we when we allow morons to stop us from producing the power we need to feed ourselves? The greens understand and approve that this will drive prices up and repress the economy further. This argument is also false but that is for another day.

My point is again that these draconian across the board decisions are not what people need from government. They don’t help us in any way to survive better, live longer, be healthier or serve any beneficial purpose for the governed masses whatsoever.

If it is so bad Jeff, why did people do it?

It is no coincidence that this stupidity does provide massive benefit to the overreaching political power-mongers fed money from a few of the massive ‘GE style’ corporations. The same corporations which have the most to benefit by providing a higher dollar CFL/LED product demanded by legislative fiat of the subjugated populations. Why is it that the big-industry hating progressives miss that point so often?

In the meantime, the ban on incandescent lighting won’t end the world, but it is absolutely one more brick in that anti-prosperity wall – right when we don’t need it.

Not that we ever will.

140 Responses to “Decisions we don’t need your help with”

  1. Chuck L said

    As many others have remarked, today it’s lightbulbs, tomorrow, what will it be: windows, roofs, inulation, house size, or who knows what else might be banned or decreed in the name of the Green Religion. As the expression goes, give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile as our freedom is stolen from us, incandescent lightbulb by incandescent lightbulb.

  2. John M said

    The traditional light bulb was the universal symbol for a brilliant idea. I’m afraid CFL’s are becoming the symbol for the intellectually bankrupt.

    This comes from someone who has replaced almost all of my light bulbs with CFLs…where they make sense. I’ve even bought a couple of $20 led’s where I need to leave them on all night and get a pay-back within ~ 3 years.

    But CFL’s are limited. They do not work outside in the winter. They are not the solution lights that go on and off frequently for short periods of time. They are absolutely insane for something like a trouble light, where breakage is just about guarenteed to happen at some point.

    So why is this an issue for our overpaid and underworked legilative branch to spend time on?

    I know, dumb question.

    CFL’s are widely available at decent prices. Why not let the market decide?

    I know, another dumb question.

  3. Robert Austin said

    Thankfully the wise Canadian voters gave the Conservative Party a majority and they promptly deferred the ban on incandescent light bulbs to 2014. Then maybe the delay is sufficient to allow rational thought to prevail. Meanwhile, my hoarding of incandescents can be delayed a few more years.

  4. No, in some communities the consumer is not capable of making safe decisions – especially while there is such widespread misinformation such as is propogated by this blog, and the million other ignorant american neo-con zombie blogs.

    You embody a typical knee-jerk and childish reaction to ‘change’. In Australia we got rid of incandescents long ago. There was a similar indignant uproar from the stationary & ignorant conservatives, but – as is entirely predicatable – within a year they had forgotten all about it & instead moved to ‘more important’ issues – like opposing gay marriage etc.

    Come on man, I subscribe to your posts to really get a feel for how the ‘opposition’ thinks. Unfortunately I dont see much thinking, just predicatable reactions, laced with all the neo-con myths that to can lay hands on.

  5. timetochooseagain said

    You’ve nailed it Jeff. The actions of the government have taken a choice away from people, and for what? “Energy efficiency” that will cost us money we don’t have, and inconsequential impact on the environment. Frankly it’s absurd that such a thing could happen and is, if you ask me, proof that we are no more rational than our witch burning sun worshiping ancestors. Well, our governments aren’t at least, and that doesn’t reflect well on the people either.

    BTW, no offense to any sun worshipers or witch burners! ;)

  6. John M said

    Anthony Hall,

    So how much did Australia’s CO2 emissions decrease?

  7. Your cynical reply is typical, and reflects a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. You know full-well that this measure will not – by itself – close any power stations. You imply (by omission) that this measure is therefore not worth taking, and that we greens are therefore somehow grossly deluded – a stawman argument.

    By taking this measure, we (Australians) have taken one of many small steps that are required in order to increase our energy efficiency. It is hoped that by such measures we will not be required to build yet another dirty coal power station.

    It seems that denialists – bereft of any real argument – love to ridicule every small step taken, as a waste of time and money – but you know that it is ONLY with these small steps that we get closer to the goal.

    If you are unwilling to help yourself and the planet, then at least get out of the way.

  8. John M said

    If you are unwilling to help yourself and the planet, then at least get out of the way.

    We tend to do that by not forcing other people to live the way they don’t want to live.

  9. Mark T said

    Wow, Anthony, what an idiot. Do you tie your own shoes, or does mummy do it for ya?

    Mark

  10. John M said

    Mark T,

    Anthony leaves them untied.

    That’s why he’s into “small steps”.

  11. I started installing CFLs when the only place you could buy them was Amway. I did it for reasons that still make sense to me and nobody had to point a gun at my head.

    I still have enough incandescent lamps to keep my remaining luminous heaters running for at least another 10 years; anyone who wants to take them away will have a fight on his hands.

    The real victim here is “Freedom”, a commodity that made the USA a shining beacon to the oppressed across the world. Now the USA is classified as “Mostly Free” by the Heritage Foundation in its annual “Index of Economic Freedom”.

  12. Mark T said

    I’m curious why they aren’t taking any big steps? Shouldn’t we be applauding the crusaders for moving back into caves? I mean, if they’re really serious about improving things and all…

    I did it for reasons that still make sense to me and nobody had to point a gun at my head.

    All flourescents give me a headache. There is no good reason for me.

    The real victim here is “Freedom”, a commodity that made the USA a shining beacon to the oppressed across the world.

    Simpletons like Anthony would not even begin to understand such a concept as individual rights, let alone what freedom really means. It’s OK to force someone through threat of violence to do what he demands since he has “morality” on his side. Neither do the Anthony Halls of the world know what “morality” really means.

    Mark

  13. Jeff Id said

    Anthony,

    As you have designated yourself the enlightened one here, where would the transition away from the incandescent bulb help me? Are you claiming that I would save money and the 7-8 months of heating we do don’t matter? Are you claiming that my non-use of nuclear power would save CO2? Or are you claiming that I am singularly smart enough to work it out myself which way to go and others would not be?

  14. Jeff Id said

    I’m not letting Anthony go that easily either. Check this sentence out:

    “No, in some communities the consumer is not capable of making safe decisions ”

    Is that not the perfect embodiment of the leftist mind. Baby steps to bad places.

  15. As expected, maybe 1 or two half-intelligent replies, drowned in a sea of neo-con knee-jerks, and attempts at humour … LOL.

    “No, in some communities the consumer is not capable of making safe decisions ” – Thats right, and you have not supplied any reasoned rebuttle, rather you appeal to a vague sense of a ‘leftist mind’ – nothing solid at all. How am I to change my mind with no solid argument? Unlike yourself, I require some actual sound reasoning before forming a view.

    To support my statement I now offer the examples of:
    addictive drugs – they are controlled aren’t they? I demand freedom to use them!!
    Guns – the American position speaks for itself – big mistake.
    Tobacco – I demand to be able to smoke & bugger off all you who complain of passive smoke, or having to pay for the social costs of my habit.
    Road rules – I’ll drive how I want thank you.
    … etc

    The classic American mantra of “individual freedom” is so incredibly misused. It denies the reality that we are social beings, and for us to live in harmony together we must have rules that restrict our ability to harm ourselves and each other. Europeans – and just about everyone else – know this.

    We cannot make ‘big steps’ because (both here and usa) the right wing opposition continue to play obstructionist & gutter politics. Isn’t it strange that the only real opposition to action on climate comes from the right wing? Only in USA & Aust has climate science become politicised.

    I doubt you lot will actually comprehend my points, so go ahead & make your childish jokes and magical conclusions – you are simply showing the world your ignorance, for anyone that cares to read.

  16. John M said

    I guess incandescent light bulbs are the new crack cocaine.

  17. Greg F said

    It seems that denialists – bereft of any real argument – love to ridicule every small step taken, as a waste of time and money …

    I Live in New York State. The electric mix includes hydro, natural gas, and nuclear. Heating is primarily natural gas, propane, and oil. Where I live the heating season is 9 months so there is no energy savings with CF and the resultant effect is an increase in fossil fuel usage. In the summer months due to the longer days the lights simply are not on as much (8:00 tonight in opposition to 4:00 in the dead of winter). To add insult to injury in the winter the low temperature CF I have on the front entrance take so long to warm up that we just leave them on which results in an increase in energy usage. The only one “bereft of any real argument” is you. The one size fits all solution you so pompously promote is a small step backwards for people who live where I live.

    You imply (by omission) that this measure is therefore not worth taking, and that we greens are therefore somehow grossly deluded – a stawman argument.

    I work at a non-profit loaded with greens. They are grossly deluded, as well as ignorant of the basic laws of physics, as you appear to be. This year they invested in a sophisticated lighting system to save energy. The town this non-profit is in has municipal power which is all hydro and cheap. Heating is propane, which costs more than electricity, which they will now use more of and will be less efficient. A number people I work with live in the same town and heat with electricity. Buying into the simplistic green energy solution they changed all their bulbs and to their surprise the electric bill didn’t go down.

    …but you know that it is ONLY with these small steps that we get closer to the goal.

    It doesn’t seem to matter to you if the small steps are backwards because it is just easier to believe in one size fits all. Like a lot of greens the goal is more about style than it is about substance. The one size fits all mentality is like a slogan, easy to promote but devoid of any substance.

  18. Jeff Id said

    Anthony,

    You have missed every point I made in 13 and the headpost.

    “Thats right, and you have not supplied any reasoned rebuttle’

    There was nothing to rebut. To recap, you called me wrong and a bunch of other stuff, then you went on about the ignorance of people. Where am I wrong about the flat fact that incandescent lamps are highly efficient in my climate for the majority of the year? Where am I wrong that they actually save CO2 emissions over CFL?

    Oddly enough, it is you who provides no rationale for your claims.

  19. Greg F said

    Anthony seems to be a good example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

  20. kuhnkat said

    Jeff Id,

    ““No, in some communities the consumer is not capable of making safe decisions ”

    Is that not the perfect embodiment of the leftist mind. Baby steps to bad places.”

    Leftards never realize the hypocrisy when they rail about Religious Puritanism and then turn around and make these statements!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  21. Kan said

    John M. asks “So how much did Australia’s CO2 emissions decrease?”

    Anthony replies “Your cynical reply is typical, and reflects a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. You know full-well that this measure will not – by itself – close any power stations.You imply (by omission) that this measure is therefore not worth taking, and that we greens are therefore somehow grossly deluded – a stawman argument.”

    Unh? It is a strawman argument to ask how much did Australia’s C02 emissions decrease? The whole point of forcing the change to CFLs was to decrease CO2 emissions (by some amount).

    Given that there appears to be no answer to the decrease, one is left to conclude what the real strawman argument was.

  22. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff,

    You could add a lot of street-cred to this post if you told people what your business sells.

  23. @Jeff – No, my reasoning is sound, it’s just that you don’t like it. I did not directly address your point at 13, but did so indirectly. I figured you wouldnt get it, so I didnt stress on it too much. I did not make any of the claims that you suggested I had made. You guys love the strawman arguments dont you!

    You are cherry-picking specific examples in the hope that it will prove your point. Once again you have demonstrated you inability to reason – beyond the concern of your own wallet.

    Your light bulbs may suit your situation – I dont know … lets just presume you would be ‘better off’ without CFL, but what about the country, or the whole world? Your insistence to be able to do as you please may come at a cost to the whole nation. Governments dont just introduce these regulations for fun – they do research & make a decision based on averages etc.

    Your unwillingness to play the team game is typically american, & is what causes you grief in this situation. Get over your individualism – it hurts people.

    @Greg – this also addresses your problem too – though I cannot defend the stupidity of American greens – they are generally just as mis-informed as the rest of the population, but at least they probably have more noble intentions.
    … Just because you use renewables, doesnt mean you have to waste it. Gas heating is generally much better than electric … I dont believe that you have considered their points properly. In a well contructed grid, the electricity saved would be available for others to use… Im not so enthusiastic to tackle your issues as I suspect you are simply venting steam … your stories are too subjective for me to comment on really. Just accept that Governments usually legislate for solid reasons – not just to piss you off. I undersatnd that in recent years it has become very fashionable to be cynical of governments, scientists, or any organisation that has authority.

    The problem you all have (with my argument of social responsability), is that it becomes very clear that a socialist-style approach is really quite fair, and cool. I know that in the USA, the word ‘socialism’ creates a hysterical response. This dilemma forces you to respond irrationally. LOL

    You poor buggers! One day we will liberate you from your corporate dictatorship.

    Ive said enough, I think. You will have to learn to play nicely amongst your selves now.

  24. @Jeff – No, my reasoning is sound, it’s just that you don’t like it. I did not directly address your point at 13, but did so indirectly. I figured you wouldnt get it, so I didnt stress on it too much. I did not make any of the claims that you suggested I had made. You guys love the strawman arguments dont you!

    You are cherry-picking specific examples in the hope that it will prove your point. Once again you have demonstrated you inability to reason – beyond the concern of your own wallet. I have no problems conceding that your observations of your own situations may be correct.

    Most concisely – you are wrong because you fail to take into account the greater good of the community.

    Your light bulbs may suit your situation – I dont know … lets just presume you would be ‘better off’ without CFL, but what about the state, or whole country? Your insistence to be able to do as you please may come at a cost to the whole nation. Governments dont just introduce these regulations for fun or silliness – they do research & make a decision based on averages etc.

    Your unwillingness to play the team game is typically american, & is what causes you grief in this situation. Get over your individualism – it hurts people.

    @Greg – this also addresses your problem too – though I cannot defend the stupidity of American greens – they are generally just as mis-informed as the rest of the population, but at least they probably have more noble intentions.
    … Just because you use renewables, doesnt mean you have to waste it. Gas heating is generally much better than electric … I dont believe that you have considered their points properly. In a well contructed grid, the electricity saved would be available for others to use… Im not so enthusiastic to tackle your issues as I suspect you are simply venting steam … your stories are too subjective for me to comment on really. Just accept that Governments usually legislate for solid reasons – not just to piss you off. I undersatnd that in recent years it has become very fashionable to be cynical of governments, scientists, or any organisation that has authority.

    The problem you all have (with my argument of social responsability), is that it becomes very clear that a socialist-style approach is really quite fair, and cool. I know that in the USA, the word ‘socialism’ creates a hysterical response. This dilemma forces you to respond irrationally. LOL

    @Kan – The strawman is “Saving energy is a waste of time because you cannot tell me how much CO2 is saved.” To spell out the answer – these actions taken on a large enough scale will eventually result in less power stations being built. Of course it will save energy, but I’m not such a geek that I know the exact answer for your situation. I dont believe that you could not work this out for yourself. You are just trying to claim ‘political’ points … or you perhaps really are as stupid as you sound. You are not serious about getting to the truth of the matter – more concerned with loss of face probably.

    Are you claiming that the mandating of CFLs will NOT save power?

    @Kuhnkat – “Religious Puritanism” – wtf are u talking about? I am athiest, and Buddhist… would you prefer me to have no ethical regard?

    You poor buggers! One day we will liberate you from your corporate dictatorship.

    Ive said enough, I think. You will have to learn to play nicely amongst your selves now.

    If you have managed to read this far – well done! You are unique, and probably a genius amongst your peers.

  25. boballab said

    What’s really funny is that Anthony here gave away that the “Goal” is not CO2 reduction but control. If you can bring your self to read what he says it has nothing to do with the environment but everything to do with Marxism:

    No, in some communities the consumer is not capable of making safe decisions

    See only the enlightened like Comrade Anthony here is smart enough to know which lightbulb is best for us!

    You know full-well that this measure will not – by itself – close any power stations.

    When Comrade Anthony was asked how much CO2 was reduced he showed us it wasn’t about that it was closing “power stations”. Please note the comrade didn’t specify Coal fired either so we must work towards closing all Nuclear, Hydro and Gas fired power stations.

    It denies the reality that we are social beings, and for us to live in harmony together we must have rules that restrict our ability to harm ourselves and each other. Europeans – and just about everyone else – know this.

    In light of the fact that you might harm yourself shaving the Central Committee has outlawed all razors, especially electric ones since we need to close those power plants.

    One day we will liberate you from your corporate dictatorship.

    Workers of the World Unite!

    Ive said enough, I think.

    You said more then enough to show us how you miss the USSR, Comrade Anthony.

  26. dribble said

    I changed my incandescent bulbs to CFL believing I was going to get a good deal in lower power bills. Unfortunately the lights are so dim (and I am using the strongest ones I can get) that they are virtually useless. They are pathetic lightbulbs. Fortunately halogen incandescent bulbs are apparently not banned and are appearing in shops for sale. I am currently replacing the CFL lights with these, and hope that these aren’t going to be banned next. If Anthony Hall thinks CFL lightbulbs are going to save the world I will be happy to stand in his way and encourage others to do so.

  27. Mark T said

    If i’m not mistaken, Europeans are currently in the process of realizing something, but not what the nitwit thinks. They’re realizing that socialism in any of its forms is about control and a lack of freedom. The nitwit, of course, was self-appointed to make such decisions for us because he is enlightened.

    I’m curious if he is willing to accept the consequences of the decisions he feels qualified to make for humanity should he be proven wrong?

    Mark

  28. I cannot resist –
    @Dribble – you should shop around – maybe a bit further out than your general store – you can get good ones on the interwebs, I hear. (There’s no problem with brightness, stop trying to invent your own hell.)

    @Boballab – as I said, the word ‘socialism’ brings on hysteria. Get over it. I like being a socialist, and so does most of the civilised world. It’s about how we take care of people who are too stupid (or disadvantaged) to care for themselves. It’s not their fault they are stupid.
    And again we see a strawman under construction – my statement “You know full-well that this measure will not – by itself – close any power stations” has been magically transformed to mean exactly what it clearly does not mean. etc etc … not worth a response beyond this.

    Thus far I think only Jeff has managed to articulate anything interesting in this thread. Sad, but strangely enjoyable.

  29. dribble said

    Unreconstructed Marxists like Anthony Hall must be thanking heaven for the CO2=AGW paradigm. They can now all pretend to be deep greenies and magically hope to regain the good old days when they thought they enjoyed credibility. As for the rest of us who have not yet had the great revelation, I suppose we must wait patiently for people like Anthony to go away again.

    I’m not against socialism per se, there are degrees of right/left thinking in the political spectrum. This is clearly a redneck blog, and I often find the extreme rightwing attitudes displayed here to be quite amusing, but thats Americans for you. They tend to be more extreme than normal people and often quite childlike in their attachment to their treasured nutbag beliefs.

    As for light bulbs Its basically a matter of practicality. CFL light bulbs and Australia’s brand new carbon tax will have no effect on the climate. Everybody knows this. These measures are designed for two purposes only: Firstly they are foot in the door projects designed to acclimatise the population for tax hikes and austerity to come (assuming global warming happens as prophesied), and second, they are designed to appease voters and party workers such as Anthony that SOMETHING ANYTHING IS AT LAST BEING DONE TO START THE GREAT TASK OF PLANETARY SALVATION (even if nothing is actually being done).

    Please accept my apologies for the use of capitals but that is how people like the ones Anthony wants to manipulate think inside their heads about the issue. The same goes for wind farms and solar panels. They have no practical effect but serve as wonderful statement projects for those like Anthony for whom the politics is real issue.

  30. Greg F said

    The problem you all have (with my argument of social responsability), is that it becomes very clear that a socialist-style approach is really quite fair, and cool.

    In some ideal world. The problem with Anthony’s ideal world is it doesn’t exist, nor ever has, nor ever will. The real world is far too complex for the “socialist-style approach” to work. The child should learn some history of the spectacular failings of the “socialist-style approach”. The child should learn that to implement the “socialist-style approach” requires concentration of power which has never had a happy ending.

    Just because you use renewables, doesnt mean you have to waste it.

    Anthony clearly either has an unusual definition of waste or he is dodging dealing with evidence that contradicts his simplistic world view. I suspect the latter.

    Gas heating is generally much better than electric …

    Asserting facts not in evidence. I get it … its better because Anthony says so! Sheesh.

    I dont believe that you have considered their points properly.

    I don’t believe your reading comprehension is very good. The non-profit I work at doesn’t have natural gas as an alternative. The greenies I work with never bother to check the energy usage before and after to see if the so called savings ever materialized. It is a religion of earth worship. Primitive.

    In a well contructed grid, the electricity saved would be available for others to use…

    Now he is babbling. Who said anything about the grid. If I used electricity to heat my house then the natural gas “saved would be available for others to use”.

    … your stories are too subjective for me to comment on really.

    Typical response from a fanatical greenie. They can’t face the evidence that their simplistic one size fits all solution has problems in the real world. A real life example is subjective to them and the fantasy world they live in is objective.

    Just accept that Governments usually legislate for solid reasons – not just to piss you off. I undersatnd that in recent years it has become very fashionable to be cynical of governments, scientists, or any organisation that has authority.

    Anthony is completely oblivious to history. Can you say Eugenics? Sure you can. And the child wants us to “just accept that Governments usually legislate for solid reasons” when history clearly says they don’t. What has become fashionable is the religious like belief that government is the great problem solver. Even recent history seems to evade these fanatics. The BP oil spill in the gulf where the Dutch skimmers were rejected because they only removed 99% of the oil, not the 99.9% required by the EPA.

    You poor buggers! One day we will liberate you from your corporate dictatorship.

    The government is like the mafia. As long as the corporations pay protection money they do well. Get out of line and the government (mafia) will squish you like a bug. There is no “corporate dictatorship” Anthony. What we have is a pay to play system. A system where protection money gets regulations that protect those large corporate entities. They use regulation to raise the bar to competition. Stop paying and the regulation bar goes down. One day Anthony you will get what you’re foolishness deserves. You will be a slave of the socialist state you so crave just like millions before you.

  31. Greg. Cavanagh said

    I’m no expert, but I believe America uses 110/120 volts, whereas Australia uses 220/240 volts. I believe the amperage is different also.

    The Australian CFL’s are brighter than the American ones. Though I don’t know the reason for it, temperature of amperage, not sure.

    And Anthony, your condescending tone is not the way to make an argument. You’re not teaching or convincing us of anything only insulting us, which in turn reflects badly upon yourself. Calling others ignorant is not a wise way to begin a conversation.

  32. Lubos Motl said

    Dear Jeff, thanks for your nice text. Just to be sure, I didn’t invent the term “heatball”. It’s a marketing name in Germany where a clever guy was importing these products, see

    http://www.heatball.de/

    before the German government began to confiscate them… It was quite a scandal in the media etc.

  33. As you can see from Anthony’s righteous rants (a religious styled fanaticism is obvious), statists and socialists types always believe that this time they got it right.Unjust oppression and totalitarianism will not take place this time because they now know better than those of the past — won’t make that mistake again — and far better than the liberty-freedom-individual rights addicts of today. They want to do the same thing that brought disaster and immense human suffering countless times in the past as if this time it will end differently. Isn’t this a classic example of that (probably falsely attributed) Einsteinian definition of insanity?

  34. Greg F said

    Dribble – you should shop around – maybe a bit further out than your general store – you can get good ones on the interwebs, I hear. (There’s no problem with brightness, stop trying to invent your own hell.)

    Unfortunately Anthony is unaware that the spectral response of a fluorescent is a series of peaks unlike the broad spectrum that sunlight and incandescent bulbs produce. The fluorescents light is all in 3 or 4 narrow bands and are not equivalent to an incandescent. The lumen rating is a poor metric as it completely ignores the spectral differences. At 56 years old I have no problem reading under my 72 watt halogen bulbs. With two 23 watt CF at almost 3 times as many lumens, which appears much brighter, reading is difficult at best. Same scenario in the kitchen. The main light has two 33 watt CF bulbs but the light over the sink with a 72 watt halogen, despite not being as bright, is better for seeing detail. Idiots like Anthony, with his simplistic world, view cannot comprehend that a light bulb has characteristics that are not evident in the lumens rating. In fact, at the non-profit where I work all our exhibits use broad spectrum lighting as even the greens here realize there is a quality difference. This leads me to believe the watermelon contingency is Australia is not nearly as bright as the watermelon contingency in the states.

  35. TGSG said

    Dear Anthony,

    FOAD,

    Thank you in advance.

    TGSG

  36. boballab said

    I like being a socialist, and so does most of the civilised world. It’s about how we take care of people who are too stupid (or disadvantaged) to care for themselves. It’s not their fault they are stupid.

    Ah yes clearly Comrade Anthony has learned his lessons well from:

    Comrade Stalin in how to take care of people

    In the first years of collectivization it was estimated that industrial production would rise by 200% and agricultural production by 50%,[59] but these estimates were not met. Stalin blamed this unanticipated failure on kulaks (rich peasants), who resisted collectivization. (However, kulaks proper made up only 4% of the peasant population; the “kulaks” that Stalin targeted included the slightly better-off peasants who took the brunt of violence from the OGPU and the Komsomol. These peasants were about 60% of the population). Those officially defined as “kulaks,” “kulak helpers,” and later “ex-kulaks” were to be shot, placed into Gulag labor camps, or deported to remote areas of the country, depending on the charge. Archival data indicates that 20,201 people were executed during 1930, the year of Dekulakization.[52]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Collectivization

    Conclusion
    New demographic evidence and NKVD criminal homicide data (TsGAOR) confirm that at least 5.2 million people classifiable as excess deaths perished during the thirties. This validates the reliability of excess deaths as a homicide estimator contrary to Anderson’s and Silver’s assertions, and strongly indicates that 4.2 million other computable excess deaths were victims of Stalinism. Higher homicide tolls in the vicinity of 13.5-14.3 million calculated by Conquest are also demographically possible, given remaining uncertainties about unregistered births during the famine years and the censuses of 1937 and 1939

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/rosefielde.pdf

    Comrade Mao on how to implement change and how to take of people

    Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labeled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions, and social pressure. Rural industrialization, officially a priority of the campaign, saw “its development … aborted by the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward.”[1]
    The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths.[2] Estimates of the death toll range from 16.5 to 46 million,[3][4][5] with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 to 32.5 million.[6] Historian Frank Dikötter asserts that “coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward” and it “motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history.”[7]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

    Comrade Pol Pot (aka Saloth Sar) in how to close those power stations down and take care of people

    The Khmer Rouge also had a policy of evacuating urban areas to the countryside. When the Khmer Rouge took the town of Kratie in 1971, Saloth and other members of the party were shocked at how fast the liberated urban areas shook off socialism and went back to the old ways. Various ideas were tried to re-create the town in the image of the party, but nothing worked. In 1973, out of total frustration, Saloth decided that the only solution was to send the entire population of the town to the fields in the countryside. He wrote at the time “if the result of so many sacrifices was that the capitalists remain in control, what was the point of the revolution?”. Shortly after, Saloth ordered the evacuation of the 15,000 people of Kompong Cham for the same reasons. The Khmer Rouge then moved on in 1974 to evacuate the larger city of Oudong.

    The Khmer Rouge leadership boasted over the state-controlled radio that only one or two million people were needed to build the new agrarian communist utopia. As for the others, as their proverb put it, “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”[14]
    Hundreds of thousands of the new people, and later the depositees, were taken out in shackles to dig their own mass graves. Then the Khmer Rouge soldiers beat them to death with iron bars and hoes or buried them alive. A Khmer Rouge extermination prison directive ordered, “Bullets are not to be wasted.” These mass graves are often referred to as The Killing Fields.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

    Just remember Comrade Anthony not all Comrades stay alive once the Revolution! is won:

    Leon Trotsky[2] (Russian pronunciation: [ˈlʲef ˈtrot͡skʲɪj] ( listen); 7 November 1879[3] – 21 August 1940), born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein,[2] was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Soviet politician, and the founder and first leader of the Red Army.

    Trotsky was initially a supporter of the Menshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. He joined the Bolsheviks immediately prior to the 1917 October Revolution, and eventually became a leader within the Party, second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs and later as the founder and commander of the Red Army, and People’s Commissar of War. He was a major figure in the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War (1918-20). He was also among the first members of the Politburo.

    After leading a failed struggle of the Left Opposition against the policies and rise of Joseph Stalin in the 1920s and the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, Trotsky was successively removed from power, expelled from the Communist Party, deported from the Soviet Union and assassinated on Stalin’s orders.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

  37. Brian H said

    Robt. Austin;
    Unfortunately, provincial restrictions still apply. The Fed change will have little direct effect. Stockpile.

  38. Brian H said

    Anthony Hall;
    A disgrace to our shared surname.

    Here’s an excerpt from a transcript posted on WUWT, Bolt interviewing Lindzen:

    AB: So you’d consider this more a sort of big government measure than anything that could really influence the world’s climate for the good.

    RL: I think there’s no disagreement in the scientific community that this will have no impact on climate, so it’s purely a matter of government revenue. And, as I say, I mean if they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians.

    He’s speaking of the massive CO2 reduction push and tax grab in Australia, but makes it clear it applies to the whole panoply of CO2-mitigation.

    A far wiser and more qualified man than you, clearly.

  39. Ian said

    Anthony Hall

    As a fellow Australian, greens voter and former active Green Party member…please just shut up.

    Best wishes, Ian

  40. Brian H said

    Another wee problem with CFLs (and computer screens, unfortunately) is their blue bias, which blocks melatonin production leading to insomnia, and seems to contribute to fat accumulation.

    Not fit for purpose.

  41. kim said

    It’s cool all the way to the killing fields, and for some, that’s the coolest. There’s an Anthony Hall born every minute, but why do they all act like it was just the last minute?
    ========================

  42. Chuck L said

    We should all chip in and buy Anthony a one-way ticket to North Korea or Cuba so he can live the life he so ardently desires.

  43. kim said

    He seems in a big hurry to get there, Chuck. Did you note the ‘Get out of the way’?
    ===============

  44. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Anthony (starting with comment #4),

    If you want predictability, consider liberal/left/green believers like yourself:

    Always arrogant, hostile, and spewing gratuitous insults.

    Always dismissive of anyone who holds a different POV.

    Always so cock-sure of their correctness that they simply wonn’t hear a valid counter argument.

    Always questioning both the motives and intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them.

    It is all so tiresome and intellectually lazy; you offer no thoughtful content, only slogans and insults. You and your ilk have a huge amount of growing up to do. As Winston Churchill said: “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.” For your sake, I hope your are young.

  45. Jeff Id said

    You say that you chose not to address my comments in #13, but they are simply echoes of the headpost. It seems Anthony that you admit my correctness for the use of the evil incandescent light but only in my situation?

    Anthony, as the title says, we don’t need your thoughts and iron fist to make our own decisions on which light to use. Despite your belief to the contrary. Also, you have a twisted and unfortunate view of America.

  46. bill said

    >>> If you are unwilling to help yourself and the planet, then at least get out of the way.

    I would bet overpopulation, food shortages, etc are a bigger problem for this planet than lightbulbs. How about you take your own advice and dust off that revolver in your dresser drawer and decrease your environmental footprint? Oh wait, Aussies aren’t allowed to have guns either, apparantly because they’re ‘too irresponsible’ to handle them w/o their government telling them what to do. Get in line…

  47. Frank K. said

    I think we need to ban all large supercomputers, especially those running climate science research, as they are extremely wasteful of energy (energy that can be helping people survive) and require massive cooling and other infrastructure to keep them running. Moreover, they appear to serve (especially in the case of climate science) NO useful purpose other than to permit a few people to publish papers.

    I know everyone will join me in calling for a complete BAN of supercomputers!! I’m sure the scientists won’t miss them. We can then move towards dismantling the internet, which is also very wasteful of precious energy…

  48. Eadler said

    Anthony has been patient enough to make some cogent rational arguments, to which I would like to add the following:

    Incandescent bulbs are not specifically banned by legislation in the US. There are new efficiency standards for general use lighting which require lower energy consumption per lumen than incandescent bulbs can provide at present. these standards do not apply for special use bulbs, for which there are no substitutes for incandescent bulbs. this is akin to mileage standards for automobiles, which are effective in fostering innovation to reduce emissions..

    To me, the use of incandescent bulbs to heat a home is nonsensical.
    Electric heat is the least efficient way to heat a home. A lot of electricity in the US comes from burning gas and coal, which do involve higher emissions. Direct heating of homes using natural gas, or heating oil is far more efficient than using electricity dissipated in incandescent bulbs.

    Overall the regulation makes sense, and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am not convinced by the personal anecdotal objections thrown up on this web site. The attempts at ridicule are childish, and the whining about communism is paranoid fantasy.

    The extent to which conservative, right wing ideology prevents people from thinking logically about science and engineering is appalling. We cannot rely on voluntary actions by individuals to fix a problem like anthropogenic global warming, which is a classic tragedy of the commons. We are all in this together and only action by government can fix it.

  49. OK. There are some interesting points, and a lot of rubbish.

    @Dribble – “CFL light bulbs and Australia’s brand new carbon tax will have no effect on the climate. Everybody knows this.”
    – No, everybody does not know this. Even Abbott has struggled to find anyone to back his (and your) claims (that the tax will do nothing). There is little doubt that the overwhelming opinion of business and community leaders, is that this tax is quite the right thing to do. You will no doubt contest this … here’s a short, but significant list to begin with:

    AGL, Alstom, ARTC, ARUP, Australasian Railway Association, Better Place, Big Switch Projects, BP, Catholic Super, Consult Australia, Ecosave, Fujitsu, GE, IKEA, Johnson Controls, Kell & Rigby, Linfox, Local Government Super, Pacific Hydro, pitt&sherry, Pottinger, WestNet Rail

    They have all rallied to support the tax. Right wing politicians and polluter lobbyists are in a frenzy. Theyre desperate to scare the public in order to break the fledgling agreement in Canberra, and to hijack the debate.

    “there are degrees of right/left thinking in the political spectrum” – yes, and some participants of this discussion are very eager to polarise and categorise me in a way that suits their argument. Of course, their creative storytelling has no resemblance to the reality, but theres no point arguing that much.

    “The same goes for wind farms and solar panels. They have no practical effect” – Huh! I really dont get where you are coming from here. Isnt it the same issue as the light bulbs: if theres enough of this type of action, then we won’t have to build more power stations?? Why is that not totally clear?

    @Greg F – I cannot communicate with you, I think. You are far too picky, and your world view seems just too darned freaky. Eugenics? Wtf are u on?. I would be here all day & get nowhere. I would rather be a slave to a ‘socialist state’ than – as is current – a slave to the corporations. … nah… better not feed him. Next.

    @Greg C – You are quite right! I like to think that I give reasoned responses to those who ask genuine questions. Unfortunately most here have made up their minds, so I call an idiot an idiot. Why should I suffer some of the more stupid questions and conclusions that have been made here?

    Have an honest look at the thread. Count the number of abuses. Count the number of nonsense or deliberately ignorant comments. I come out smelling like roses in comparison to the pack of foul-mouthed neo-cons that surround me.

    @ Greg F – “Unfortunately Anthony is unaware that the spectral response of a fluorescent is … ”
    Wrong. Try LED perhaps? I am quite familiar with the spectrum issues. (I have a physics background) Im struggling to not call you stupid – I spent 2 minutes on google & found quite a few options for you to explore – search for full spectrum globe, or similar. You should be embarrassed. Seriously.

    @Brian H – LOL – Lindzen! WUWT!! Bolt!!! Really?? You should really address the credibility of your sources. Lindzen is an oil boy, and in his past he has aligned with such causes at big tobacco & acid rain polluters. There are clear debunkings to his claim of low environmental sensitivity. WUWT will publish anything – they frequently publish contradictory positions. Bolt … I dont know what to say. May as well rely on tabloids. These are not credible or reliable scientific sources, and unless you want to be an actual climate scientist, then we need to rely on good sources.

    @Ian – I seriously doubt that you are a Green. Australian Greens are generally against censorship, and my views expressed here are quite mainstream green. Unless you object to my delivery style, I’d be interested to know why you want me to “shut up.” What part do you object to?

    Unfortunately most (not all) of you degrade your position by buying into a Grand Conspiracy theory – where we (thousands of scientists, environmentalists & ‘government types’) are plotting a marxist revolution to control the world … or whatever. Its understandable, because when you reject the science, you must invent a significant reason. I understand that many americans really do believe this.

  50. kim said

    Eadler, I’m hoping this ‘classic tragedy of the commons’, this so-called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, will be so tragic as to fend of the oncoming global cooling. From the evidence in so far, though, CO2 doesn’t seem to be a strong enough greenhouse gas to pull it off. By then the commons will be featuring farcical circuses, but no bread.
    =================

  51. Jeff Id said

    Eadler,

    First Anthony made no argument whatsoever. He just disagreed and spouted the typical drivel about do it for the good of the planet and some socialism saves all BS. Never mind that we don’t have any supporting evidence that less CO2 production is required.

    “Direct heating of homes using natural gas, or heating oil is far more efficient than using electricity dissipated in incandescent bulbs. ”

    First it isn’t about efficiency, it is about saving the planet from CO2 right? So you say it is “far more efficient” to heat the house with natural gas. How much more? Our furnace is 90% efficient natural gas type, although it is actually far worse than that due to unspecified additional losses. We are surrounded on all sides by nuclear power plants so every electricity we use saves CO2. Our incandescent light is directly converted to heat at a 100% ratio, so I wonder just where I’m going wrong in my logic. Line losses, generation etc? Our electricity here is basically CO2-less production.

    I’ll just say now that you are wrong, incandescent lights are a very efficient way to take care of lighting needs in cold climates – and for very little cost.

    As far as tragedy of the commons, I wonder just which proof of that you have because I’ve been reading papers daily for several years and can’t find it. If your first opinion is based on bad fact, as catastrophic AGW may be, every decision after that point becomes self inflicted unnecessary damage. Anyway, even if CO2 warming is as dangerous as stated by the worst of the IPCC, there are far better ways to address the problem than a nonsensical ban on a lightbulb.

  52. Frank K. said

    “The extent to which conservative, right wing ideology prevents people from thinking logically about science and engineering is appalling. We cannot rely on voluntary actions by individuals to fix a problem like anthropogenic global warming, which is a classic tragedy of the commons. We are all in this together and only action by government can fix it.”

    This is the most frightening thing I’ve read in a long time…

    So…what are YOU (and your “government”) going to do when the sheep don’t comply “voluntarily”?
    What else are you going to ban?
    Whose jobs are going to be sacrificed for you “green” ideology?

    And finally, who should we eliminate in order to avoid the “tragedy of the commons”? I think we can “logically” think of those who are expendable…

  53. Jeff Id said

    “To me, the use of incandescent bulbs to heat a home is nonsensical.”

    Hmm, I wonder what happened to the heat? Don’t we beleive in physics anymore?

  54. kim said

    No conspiracy necessary, A; it has been a remarkable popular delusion, and a madness of the crowd. Plus, you project the politicking; skeptics find it a lot harder to breathe together than do you true believers.
    ===================

  55. @Eadler – welcome to the zoo! Thanks for adding some well written and sensible words. I think someone was saying that they dont have a gas option available … hard to know how genuine they are.
    These guys just end up shooting themselves in the foot. To any normal observer, they (mostly) look like childish fools, & that is my main aim – to expose the (lack of) logic. Their arguments crumble in the harsh sunshine of reason. Always works!

  56. Jeff Id said

    “Their arguments crumble in the harsh sunshine of reason. ”

    haha – From the guy who won’t address the physics.

  57. Mark F said

    53: More to the point, in many areas, electric heating is less expensive than other heating methods. Here, primarily hydro power. CFLs give me headaches, but I’d tolerate them if the alarmists and superstitious crackpots vanished.

  58. kim said

    Aw, heck, Anthony, you forgot a word. ‘To any post normal observer’.
    =================

  59. Oh ffs Jeff, what do you want to know? Or do I have to trawl through the post to try to figure it out. Look, I’m more than happy to explore any of this – time permitting – provided it suits me, or I think there’s a reasonable chance I could ether learn something useful, or score an elegant victory. Turn on the spotlight.

  60. kim said

    We tried. It broke. Now we have vaporous mercury invading the commons.
    ==================

  61. Jeff Id said

    Anthony,

    It would be nice if you even pretended to have read the headpost. Every comment I’ve left has said basically the same thing. In northern climates, CFL doesn’t provide any ‘real’ improvement in CO2 over incandescent, and they cost more. You say I’m an American idiot basically, which isn’t an argument. Since I’m skeptical of our understanding of the magnitude and ‘danger’ of AGW, why is it that I should be forced to buy a lamp which does nothing for CO2 and costs more money

    Are you stating that I’m wrong, incandescent lamps aren’t efficient because they don’t heat the house like Eadler’s nonsense or what?

  62. @Jeff – I re-read your article, and followed your post replies. I owe you an apology. My reactions here are to peripheral issues, and other posts, which would explain your frustration. Your main point in this article may be a good one – probably why I subscribed ages ago.

    I will give it some thought & try to tear it down for you :-)

    I am NOT apologising to you other foxtarts.

  63. kim said

    Oooh, is that some elegance oozing over toward me?
    ================

  64. Frank K. said

    Jeff – This whole post has reminded me that I need to install a few more incandescent lamps around my house and stock up on some bright 75W bulbs for my workshop. By the way, to all of the American readers, you can stock up on your incandescent bulbs here…

  65. Carrick said

    Incandescent bulbs can substantially increase your electric bill … if used in the summer. Staying out of your house in the daytime reduces your heating bill too. (We produce about 100-W of heat per person, and for most regions are efficiently cooled outside using our pre-installed evaporation system.)

  66. Jeff Id said

    #65, I want to buy one of these giant plasma TV’s. Turns out that some have reported problems with their AC keeping up. It is definitely not a green option in our house.

  67. Leo G said

    Anthony, it appears that where you live has a bearing on whether it is efficient to use these bulbs or not. Here in BC, the use of these may actually add 45K more CO2 to our atmosphere per year.

    Unitended consequences are always hard to get away from.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/04/mb-light-bulbs.html

  68. Carrick said

    Jeff, we have also saved a noticeable amount of money getting rid of that archaic CRT-based TVs and replaced them with LCD TVs and computer monitors. (I generally leave the monitors poweredon, but even in standby mode, CRT displays can burn a lot of juice).

  69. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    #48 Eadler,

    Well, it is nice to see someone who supports the light bulb legislation can do so without resorting to only insults and vindictive.

    On substantive points:

    The legislation on light bulbs has other problems. In addition to the “specialty” applications where only an incandescent will function, there are normal applications (say, a location that needs a light but where that light is powered up only a handful of hours per year) where the greater cost and complexity of a compact fluorescent makes no sense at all compared to an incandescent… you need to consider the energy used in making a compact florescent, not just it’s per hour usage rate. You need also consider the time value of money; investing $5 for a payout of $0.10 per year in electricity savings is, well, crazy. Enforceability also seems a problem.

    The extent to which conservative, right wing ideology prevents people from thinking logically about science and engineering is appalling.

    I find strongly held ideology (of the right or the left.. or among Greens) consistently prevents people from thinking logically about science and technology; there is no monopoly on the right.

    We cannot rely on voluntary actions by individuals to fix a problem like global warming, which is a classic tragedy of the commons.

    Sure. But that is not really the issue being contended. The issue is the true magnitude and certainty of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ balanced against the public (and publicly forced private) costs, economic and political, for mitigation. I honestly believe there is presently insufficient technical certainty about the magnitude of projected warming, and even less sufficient certainty about adverse effects of warming, to justify large expenditures, public or private. There is sufficient data to consider the potential for some problems credible, and that justifies continuing analysis. But drastic and costly public action? No. I would be happy to change my mind if there were convincing evidence of a substantial problem, but I have not so far seen that.

    What I do see, and find troubling, is the claimed need for public action on global warming used to justify a broad range of actions favored by the left and Green parties; actions which are not generally supported by the general public. The support by the left and Greens of these actions is independent of global warming or a lack therof, just as opposition to those same actions is opposed by many, independent of global warming. The convolution of political goals with global warming is IMO a serious problem, and makes a reasoned discussion difficult to conduct.

    Finally, your statement that using electricity to heat a home never makes sense is simply wrong; it is an economic analysis. I live in Florida, and a few days each winter I have to supply heat to keep my house comfortable… electric resistance heat makes the most economic sense, because the investment in a more complex (and much more expensive) heat source would never pay off. The political issue is who gets to decide what individual actions are “best”. I think you will find that there is a lot of resistance against public intrusion into most private economic decisions. This kind of question will only be settled via elections.

  70. Mark T said

    I’m curious what eadler actually knows about science, logic, or engineering? Oddly, engineers tend to be comprised, demographically speaking, more of right of center politics than any other yet it is right of center politics which blind us all to making sound engineering decisions. Who then is actually capable engineering if not the engineers?

    Mark

  71. boballab said

    Oh No, Comrade Anthony don’t start down the “Big Oil” meme, that is a trap:

    Lindzen is an oil boy,

    If you use that as your excuse you can never use anything that comes from Climatic Research Unit at UEA since it was founded by “Big Oil”:

    The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university’s School of Environmental Sciences. The establishment of the Unit owed much to the support of Sir Graham Sutton, a former Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Lord Solly Zuckerman, an adviser to the University, and Professors Keith Clayton and Brian Funnel, Deans of the School of Environmental Sciences in 1971 and 1972.[5][6] Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit#History

    The Rockefeller foundation gets it money from the stocks it owns, given to it by the Rockefeller family. The biggest portion of Stock is EXXON/Mobile:

    Stock in the family’s oil companies is a major part of the foundation’s assets, beginning with Standard Oil and now with its corporate descendants, including Exxon Mobil.[22]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation#Family_involvement

    That makes every scientist that works at CRU an “Oil Boy” and all their research has to be thrown out of consideration. To make matters worse you have to toss all research done by scientists that co authored papers with them. Egads Comrade that means all of Michael Mann’s, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt and Keith Briffa’s work gets tossed. Even worse we have to toss out all the IPCC reviews since not only that those mention worked on them but Lindzen was a contributor as well:

    IPCC activities
    Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 “IPCC Second Assessment.” He described the full 2001 IPCC report as “an admirable description of research activities in climate science”[47] although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[48] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions.[49]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_activities

    But then things get even worse Comrade Anthony, you see Stanford took millions from Big Oil for their research and thus makes the late Stephen Schneider another “Oil Boy” since Stanford paid him:

    ExxonMobil Corporation (NYSE: XOM) is the world’s largest publicly traded petroleum and petrochemical company. An industry leader in almost every aspect of the energy and petrochemical business, we operate facilities or market products in most of the world’s countries. We employ more than 80,000 people in locations around the globe.

    ExxonMobil maintains one of the industry’s largest research and development efforts, with an annual spend of over $700 million. We emphasize proprietary solutions that solve critical business challenges and pursue research into proprietary breakthrough technologies that will not only enhance existing businesses, but also provide step changes in ExxonMobil’s competitive position.

    ExxonMobil is also committed to taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both in its current operations and over the longer term.

    http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/exxonmobil.html

    So you see Comrade Anthony using the “Big Oil’ card hurts you, not help you if we use your reasoning.

  72. Mark T said

    The nitwits have no choice but to use big oil as a scapegoat. That they think some form of socialism is a viable economic choice indicates they do not understand why big oil does not stand to benefit from being anti-agw. They are not intellectually capable of understanding why their argument simply does not work in reality. Furthermore, in general, the force of their scientific, logical, or engineering argument is weak at best, if not outright wrong.

    Mark

  73. I am quite familiar with the spectrum issues. (I have a physics background) Im struggling to not call you stupid – I spent 2 minutes on google & found quite a few options for you to explore – search for full spectrum globe, or similar. You should be embarrassed. Seriously.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Full-spectrum” is not a technical term when applied to an electrical light bulb but rather a marketing term implying that the product emulates natural light.[1]

    Products marketed as “full-spectrum” may produce light throughout the entire spectrum, but actually do not produce an even spectral distribution, and may not even differ substantially from lights not marketed as “full-spectrum”.[1][2]

    I don’t have to call Anthony stupid … he is doing a stellar job proving it all by himself.

    I would rather be a slave to a ‘socialist state’ than – as is current – a slave to the corporations.

    What are you waiting for? There are a number of socialist states you could relocate to. Try North Korea, it would do wonders for your carbon footprint.

  74. Mark T said

    The difference, of course, in being a slave to “corporations” vs. a “socialist-state” is that one can imprison you, and, if necessary, deny any of your rights including your life.

    Of course, the nitwits also do not realize that being a “slave” to corporations is just a propaganda tool used to convince the weak-minded that somebody other than the government is responsible for their common ills. In reality these corporations only have the power given them by the government in the first place… take that power away and the only slave-owner left at the table is the government itself.

    Mark

  75. I am really pissed off at this blog post. I mean for fuck’s sake, Jeff.

    You can all have your political views on lightbulb politics, and I’m not going to diss them out at all. Your liberal position on them seem fair to me. What really pisses me off is the stupidity of saying that lightbulbs are really just heatballs and people just buy them because they heat the rooms with them, so it’s not an energy loss at all.

    But that’s just the most stupid thing I’ve read for a week, and I do read some stupid things believe me.

    People buy lightbulbs for LIGHT. People have heat systems to GET HEATED. There are rooms where you want both, there are rooms where you want JUST THE LIGHT.

    To just conflate the needs and utter that what people want with their lightbulbs is not exactly what these things are advertised for doing, but rather its byproduct is just silly on your part.

  76. Steven Mosher said

    Tamino’s code drop

    http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/taminos-method-regional-temperatures/

    Should be able to drop it into my package RghcnV3 it an hour or so.

    Documents, testing, package building, demo testing, arrgg. will probably hit CRAN later this week

  77. Jeff Id said

    #75, My point is that the non-challenged know what to do already. Across the board elimination is silly when most people I know already choose what to use based on the application – see above thread for references. In my (and many others) case those crappy, inefficient light bulbs compare well with the best on the market when it is cold out.

    So if you don’t mind not swearing on the blog, hopefully you can figure out a more reasoned opinion.

  78. Hi Jeff,

    Thirty-one year ago, I had the good fortune to be invited to present the plenary lecture at the Vernaksky Institute of Geochemistry in Moscow in 1980.

    Being curious and foolhardy, I toured the country alone with Intourists agents (much to the dismay of friends who knew more about the USSR than I did), and learned:

    a.) What it is like to live under a tyrannical government.
    b.) George Orwell’s book, “1984,” was of course banned.
    c.) What the USA might become in the next 31 years

    Today, we are at the turning point, with politicians about ready to close down government to force the Executive Branch to obey constitutional limits.

    Since Democrats and Republicans led us down this path together, the next few days will show whether or not there is any chance for the USA to return to constitutional government.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  79. Greg F said

    People buy lightbulbs for LIGHT.

    They buy light bulbs so they can see. Some of us like to read and there is a marked difference in the quality of light from the different technologies. For these old eyes the CF’s are woefully inadequate for reading or close up work. A lumen from a CF is not equal to a lumen from an incandescent.

  80. @Jeff I have found a possible flaw in your logic. I think that your observation of the heating efficiency of standard bulbs is clever – nice one! Here is the (possible) flaw:

    Light bulbs are usually positioned near the ceiling, and hot air rises. Most heaters are placed near the ground – so that the warm air can get the best chance of mixing & warming the mass in the room, as it rises.

    The actual calculations for the expected average losses of light bulb heat through the ceiling would be something for a paid scientist. We dont know the answer to that (not that I have looked, so maybe the study is done by someone?). It would seem to me that there would be significaant losses, on average.

    Therefore your proposition – that in some situations, normal bulbs are not less energy efficient than CFL or LED – will require more study before it can be asserted with confidence.

    In some situations a ceiling fan would assist. Other situations normal pedestrian traffic may be enough to circulate the heat….

    Thanks for the prompting – this is the style of argument I like!
    I’ll try to ignore the swarming club-yielding Neanderthals, who will no doubt read so much more into my post than actually exists, and who will choose to ignore any substance I might present.

  81. Carrick said

    Luis:

    People buy lightbulbs for LIGHT. People have heat systems to GET HEATED. There are rooms where you want both, there are rooms where you want JUST THE LIGHT.

    You’re not the brightest bulb in the christmas tree are you? /heh/jk

    The point is which combination saves more energy. You have to factor in unintended consequences in your analysis.

    Anthony:

    Light bulbs are usually positioned near the ceiling, and hot air rises. Most heaters are placed near the ground – so that the warm air can get the best chance of mixing & warming the mass in the room, as it rises.

    My vents are in the ceiling to for both heating and cooling. Forced air systems don’t rely on passive convection. (You do keep the room more uniform in temperature with ceiling fans.)

  82. w.w.wygart said

    Jeff,

    You said, “Shutting off all the lights might, but even most hardcore greens usually would not support that.”

    I wouldn’t be too sure about that.

    I remember a conversation I had a number of years back with one of my best friends when I was living in Las Vegas. Very bright fellow, PhD [cultural anthropology] teaches at the local college, cracking drummer and poet and great visual artist ['assemblage', you can find his work on deviantart.com if you know who to look for] He was the one person in my extended circle of friends in town who could keep up with me intellectually. He suggested that rolling blackouts were a good thing for America, then he launches into this reminiscence of the time he spent in Nepal doing the field work for his dissertation [studying the brats of affluent Westerners who rush off to Nepal seeking spiritual authenticity - or something] where rolling blackouts are the norm and how he and his girlfriend [now wife] when the lights would go out would light candles and play drums and dance together till the wee hours – which I am sure was wonderful and romantic way to live if nothing in your life depends on having access to electricity.

    I remember sitting there on the floor with him, drums in our laps, wondering to myself, “How do I reply to this?” [without breaching the social cool] and not finding an answer. Here was a very bright, well educated, traveled, kind, compassionate person – my friend – who cannot grasp the intractable fact that lack of reliable access to inexpensive energy KILLS PEOPLE and causes EXACTLY the kind of endemic poverty, and distress in the third world that he spends so much of his personal, artistic and professional life critiquing. Blew my mind. But, it does seem to be a fact of some kind that it is not immediately obvious to all people that in order to REDISTRIBUTE wealth, that SOMEHOW, somebody must be able to, at some point, produce some new wealth in the first place and that ENERGY is required to do that, and the more expensive the energy the less wealth can be created, even if it is your goal to then redistribute it.

    Blows my mind.

    Then it struck me, like a clue-by-four to the forehead, that certain ideological types treat TAXPAYERS as some kind of an INEXHAUSTIBLE resource to be exploited, in exactly the way [that we now rightly condemn as shortsighted, greedy and stupid] the lumber barons of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries treated trees, as inexhaustible and limitless. When you run out in this valley, just move over to the next. And repeat. And repeat.

    Blows my mind.

    W^3

  83. Ian said

    Anthony Hall said
    July 11, 2011 at 10:28 am

    @Ian – I seriously doubt that you are a Green. Australian Greens are generally against censorship..,

    Anthony, you have a point. Telling you to ‘shut up’ was uncalled for. However, the shenanigans I witnessed in the S.A. Greens internal politics makes the phrase ‘shut up’ appear to be a compliment.

    …my views expressed here are quite mainstream green…I am athiest, and Buddhist… would you prefer me to have no ethical regard?

    Quoting some of your views:

    If you are unwilling to help yourself and the planet, then at least get out of the way.

    though I cannot defend the stupidity of American greens – they are generally just as mis-informed as the rest of the population…

    It’s about how we take care of people who are too stupid (or disadvantaged) to care for themselves. It’s not their fault they are stupid.

    I would rather be a slave to a ‘socialist state’ than – as is current – a slave to the corporations.

    so I call an idiot an idiot. Why should I suffer some of the more stupid questions and conclusions that have been made here?

    Anthony, it seems that your political leanings are perhaps more suited to ‘Resistance’, if you’re still young enough, or perhaps the Communist Party of Australia. If you are indeed a member of the Greens you would know that one of their key platforms, as for most forms of Buddhism, is nonviolence. If you truly adhere to Buddhist philosophy you would be aware of point 3 of the Eightfold path – ‘Right speech’.

    Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace.

    Anthony, It appears to me through what you have written that you harbour a deal of anger toward people you disagree with. You made numerous disparaging and accusatory posts, calling posters all manner of names. I fail to see how reacting in such a cantankerous manner serves anybody, particularly yourself.

    While my politics are quite dissimilar to that of our host, and many of the regular posters, I respect his scientific nous and find interest in many of the topics. I am not overly enamoured with this light bulb topic and would have passed it by if I hadn’t come across your comments.

    If you happen to live in Brisbane I would be happy to get together and discuss life over coffee, beer or whatever you preferred beverage choice.

    Best wishes, Ian

  84. Mark T said

    Then it struck me, like a clue-by-four to the forehead, that certain ideological types treat TAXPAYERS as some kind of an INEXHAUSTIBLE resource to be exploited, in exactly the way [that we now rightly condemn as shortsighted, greedy and stupid] the lumber barons of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries treated trees, as inexhaustible and limitless. When you run out in this valley, just move over to the next. And repeat. And repeat.

    They do forget, don’t they, that eventually everybody is poor, and nobody can pay taxes, i.e., eventually you run out of other peoples’ money. Then what?

    I’m fortunate I know how to survive in the mountains, sort of. I have enough friends with guns that it won’t matter. :)

    Mark

  85. Ian said

    Anthony Hall said
    July 11, 2011 at 10:28 am

    @Ian – I seriously doubt that you are a Green. Australian Greens are generally against censorship..,

    Anthony, you have a point. Telling you to ‘shut up’ was uncalled for. However, the shenanigans I witnessed in the S.A. Greens internal politics makes the phrase ‘shut up’ appear to be a compliment.

    …my views expressed here are quite mainstream green…I am athiest, and Buddhist… would you prefer me to have no ethical regard?

    Quoting some of your views:

    If you are unwilling to help yourself and the planet, then at least get out of the way.

    though I cannot defend the stupidity of American greens – they are generally just as mis-informed as the rest of the population…

    It’s about how we take care of people who are too stupid (or disadvantaged) to care for themselves. It’s not their fault they are stupid.

    I would rather be a slave to a ‘socialist state’ than – as is current – a slave to the corporations.

    so I call an idiot an idiot. Why should I suffer some of the more stupid questions and conclusions that have been made here?

    Anthony, it seems that your political leanings are perhaps more suited to ‘Resistance’, if you’re still young enough, or perhaps the Communist Party of Australia. If you are indeed a member of the Greens you would know that one of their key platforms, as for most forms of Buddhism, is nonviolence. If you truly adhere to Buddhist philosophy you would be aware of point 3 of the Eightfold path – ‘Right speech’.

    Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace.

    Anthony, It appears to me through what you have written that you harbour a deal of anger toward people you disagree with. You made numerous disparaging and accusatory posts, calling posters all manner of names. I fail to see how reacting in such a cantankerous manner serves anybody, particularly yourself.

    While my politics are quite dissimilar to that of our host, and many of the regular posters, I respect his scientific nous and find interest in many of the topics. I am not overly enamoured with this light bulb topic and would have passed it by if I hadn’t come across your comments.

    If you happen to live in Brisbane I would be happy to get together and discuss life over coffee, beer or whatever you’re preferred beverage choice.

    Best wishes, Ian

  86. Ian said

    JeffId…apologies for the double posting
    cheers, Ian

  87. Leo G said

    Carrick, don’t forget, that in most cases, heat goes to cold, up or down. Yes it like everything else is lazy, so would rather just sit there by the ceiling, but eventually, that siren song from the cold gets its attention.

  88. Leo G said

    Anthony. I install high end radiant/forced air systems. We do a room by room heat loss calc, based on the average coldest day of the year. The program we run our measurements through takes into account lighting, body heat, sensible sunlight, etc. IIRC, the heating system typically is needed for about 80% of the actual heatloss. So yes, as more of these cold lights are installed, more gas/oil/wood, etc must be burned to make up for this loss. If you had read the link that I left upthread, you would see that here in B.C., our provincial hydro electric supplier has calculated upwards of 45K more tonnes per year added to the atmosphere by having to burn this extra gas/oil/wood, etc. Now of course I realize that up to 80% of our electricity is Hydro, so it will be different then in say Alberta, where most of their electricity is coal generated.

    Now for the obligatory analogy. We did a very high end house in West Vancouver (the most expensive municipality in Canada for house prices). The builder put over 150 – 50 watt pot lights into the spacious kitchen. The kitchen was infloor radiant heat and on its’ own zone. Well of course, after about 2 months of the new owners living there I get the call “Leo, our kitchen floors have never heated up, I think that there is a problem with your heating system.”

    Now thankfully, these clients are quite bright, so when I sat down with them and did the math, over 7500 watts generated from the lights alone, and during the coldest days of winter, we were expecting about 8700 BTUH to keep that room warm alone, well they understood that that 7500 watts equals 25,600 BTUH (enough to heat up 2/3 of the main floor alone!).

    So you see Anthony, I have real world experience with the heating ability of lighting.

  89. Oliver K. Manuel @78,

    You are way “Off Topic” but you raise an issue that will set the course of the USA for good or ill in ways that will affect our children.

    Two out of every 5 dollars spent be the federal government are borrowed; clearly not a sustainable situation. Is the President talking about correcting the problem? No, he is trying to resurrect the “Politics of Envy” that deservedly failed to propel John Edwards into the Presidency.

    In the UK we did that “Politics of Envy” thing for decades and it ruined us. It belongs in Venezuela rather than the USA. Is Marco Rubio (junior senator for Florida) the only politician with the guts to call Obama out on this?

  90. Frank K. said

    Mark T said
    July 11, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    “They do forget, don’t they, that eventually everybody is poor, and nobody can pay taxes, i.e., eventually you run out of other peoples’ money. Then what?”

    Sadly, here in America, seeing as we’re trillions in debt, we’re already out of other people’s money…fortunately, we’re also in a position, with the current congress, to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful programs such as government climate “research”

  91. Is Anthony Hall polluting the commons?

  92. Kan said

    “People buy lightbulbs for LIGHT. People have heat systems to GET HEATED.”

    Unfortunately, this is wrong. Where I come from, an incandescent light bulb is the most portable, safe way, to keep things (water pumps, car engine blocks, young livestock) from freezing. No light desired, just heat. Works wonders.

    But then again, my community is too stupid to know how stupid they are.

  93. Mark T said

    Sadly, here in America, seeing as we’re trillions in debt, we’re already out of other people’s money…fortunately, we’re also in a position, with the current congress, to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful programs such as government climate “research”

    I’m afraid our current congress is not enough. Even if they manage to overtake the Senate and the presidency, they are nothing but a different shade of the same greed and lust for power.

    Mark

  94. TGSG said

    lots of giggles all up in this joint.. Glad you came back Jeff. Lots of fun!

  95. amabo said

    I’m happy to read a thread like this. Every time I suffer the delusion that a leftie may have something to say that’s worth hearing, commenters like Anthony Hall come along and cure me of it.

  96. Jeff Id said

    Anthony,

    “Therefore your proposition – that in some situations, normal bulbs are not less energy efficient than CFL or LED – will require more study before it can be asserted with confidence.”

    Fair enough. I agree that you should study it more but you shouldn’t assume that an aeronautical engineer who works in optics and owns a green company hasn’t already done exactly that.

    My heat vents are also in the ceiling, ducts run through the attic in some places and have occasional leaks. These are losses to my furnace system, don’t forget to figure those in when you work your calcs. Also, it is important to consider the IR vs convection from the bulb surface, average bulb height etc. The other option is to recognize that like Carrick wrote above, there really isn’t much difference in ability to warm the room over convective heating although my guess is the bulb is slightly better than my own heat system.

    Leo above has a perfect example.

    Finally, if you spend ten minutes with any heating/air conditioning installer, even these often barely trained people from the smallest shops know to work lighting, computers and people into AC sizing. Cause they make heat.

  97. Well, thank you Leo, Jeff & Ian (& Shub – that was funny).
    Jeff, you can have your light bulb argument – no problem. You seem to have expertise & I have no problem listening to that, even if it hurts. For not ‘getting’ your point, and going off on my own tangents and for some bad delivery, I deserve a mild lashing – which has already been generously metered out via yourself & the hounds. I humbly bend before you and offfer my freshly oiled ass ;-)

    Ian – that was awesomely generous. You are correct, though … with the tone & content of the particular lines you have selected … I dont see it as particularly harsh/angry, given the context, but it depends on the environment they are read. I agree it can be read as very angry, and would definitely be inappropriate in most blogs. I think the surrounding (even more offensive) comments seem to colour my tone, which (I thought was) more jovial/arrogant. True that it is largely ineffective, except as a catalyst for exchange. Im from SA & hate beer, but would probably enjoy one with yourself. Too old for Resistance & never liked them much – leftist reactionaries & too violent.

    For all you ‘freedom’ loving, socialist hating people – Its not really the right thread, but my main point here is this:
    “It’s about how we take care of people who are too stupid (or disadvantaged) to care for themselves. It’s not their fault they are stupid.”
    My wife always says its offfensive to use ‘stupid’, but its used in the main article, and I believe here it is more factually correct, than an attempt to denigrate. We have to look after people who cannot do it for themselves. People who argue for ‘liberty & freedom’ & complain of a ‘nanny state’ seem to believe that just because one is disadvantaged/stupid etc, means they deserve to be taken advantage of in a private enterprise system. Just because someone is stupid, does not mean we sit idle while he drinks/gambles/pollutes/[insert harmful activity]. No we organise ourselves in a civil way & provide some level of assistance. That is what I call socialism, but is probably not what others would call it.

    Over to the hounds. Have fun demolishing your strawmans!

  98. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Anthony #97,

    A gracious comment, and a big improvement over your earlier comments.

    I suggest you watch the movie “Forrest Gump” again before you assert how much you have to look after people. I beg you to consider that there are important distinctions between “harmful activities”, mainly in whom those activities “harm”. Indeed, what constitutes “harm” is itself sometimes subjective; you should not presume to be able to decide for others how they should live their lives, since your values/priorities/desires may not be the same as theirs, and your view of “harm” very different from theirs. Forcing everyone conduct their lives according to the will of the majority is pure tyrany… the tyrany of the majority, and not much different from the tyrany of a King, Pope, or dictator. Offering help to people who need and want help is very different form forcing people to do what you want them to do, and that includes forcing them to accept your “help”.

  99. Mark F said

    97: When your only tool is a hammer (and sickle)…..

  100. Jeff Id said

    Anthony,

    “Jeff, you can have your light bulb argument – no problem.”

    I appreciate that, but it doesn’t change the fact that dolts in charge are forcing it down our throats anyway.

  101. stan said

    Jeff,

    For a really disturbing bit of nonsense in keeping with the theme of not needing our help, you just have to read this garbage in the NY Times. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/

    The reasoning is so bad (and probably so pervasive on the left) it’s a wonder we still allow juries in the court system.

    Keep a towel, wet washcloth and a trash can handy, though.

  102. stan said

    Jeff (101)

    Oops, left here to go visit the Bish and see that he and you have already weighed in. Here is what I wrote over there —

    Gary Gutting needs to read some Philip Tetlock, Gardner’s Future Babble, Wisdom of Crowds and some basic legal philosophy on why we still have juries and allow lawyers to cross-examine his supposed “experts”.

    His conclusion would be BS even if there weren’t huge glaring problems with climate science. His conclusion is BS for any type of expertise and arguments from consensus.

    But since he wrote about the supposed expertise of climate scientists and our need to rely on the opinions of experts to guide us, I have some questions:

    If stats experts say that his climate experts are butchering their stats, who should we believe?

    If software experts say that his climate experts are butchering their code, who should we believe?

    If experts in computer models and forecasts say that his climate experts are screwups, who should we believe?

    If quality control experts say that the climate databases lack quality control, who do we believe?

    If ethics and conflicts of interest experts say that climate science has serious ethical conflicts, who should we believe?

    If so-called experts in climate science abandon the scientific method, are they still climate science experts? Would it be permissible for the unwashed among us to ask these august titans why they no longer practice real science?

  103. Jim said

    For some really stupid reason, Boehner in a bone headed move, bypassed the normal rule to bring the bill to the floor which kicked in a requirement that it pass by a 2/3 majority instead of a simple majority. Had he gone through committee per rules, it would have passed.

    Anyone have any idea why he did this? Does he think we don’t take away gold stars for symbolic gestures?

  104. chris y said

    W^3, #82-

    “…certain ideological types treat TAXPAYERS as some kind of an INEXHAUSTIBLE resource to be exploited, in exactly the way [that we now rightly condemn as shortsighted, greedy and stupid] the lumber barons of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries treated trees, as inexhaustible and limitless.”

    One of the top 10 comments I’ve read this year. Thanks!

  105. timetochooseagain said

    For the record, I don’t think CFLs make sense even here where the climate almost year round makes heating unnecessary, and it isn’t a stupid or wrong decision to use incandescents over CFLs. Part of the reason is that we could burn candles and not make a significant dent in our electric bill, the vast majority of which comes from air conditioning costs. Okay, so the blulbs give off extra heat, so that must make it harder/more expensive for us to use air conditioning, right? Except that we scarcely need the bulbs during the day most of the time (it’s the “sunshine state” after all) and at night we sleep most of the hours, with the lights off. So lighting just has almost no impact on our electricity use. But even conceding that it might cause us to use marginally more energy, we make the conscious decision that we prefer the light given off by incandescents to CFLs (as many have noted, you can brag all you want about how the ratio of how bright they are to how much power they use is so great, this has nothing to do with the actual level and quality of light provided). For the upfront cost, and the loss of quality lighting, this “efficiency” benefit doesn’t cut it. The belief that the incandescents need to be banned, and CFLs essentially subsidized, seems to be that people just can’t see the benefits of this great technology! Why don’t the politicians ever consider that we see their supposed benefit and just don’t think it is worth it? Ah, but the people, they are all just so stupid! They don’t have high degrees in ecoloconoclimopolitical scientology. They can’t be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, or make what we believe are mistakes either! We must impose our belief system on them, but that’s not wrong because our beliefs are “fact” based! PUH-LEEZE! These Big Government types are no better than religious zealots insisting that people be forced to conform to their myopic world view. I apologize to all religious zealots for making such a comparison…

    I’m going off on tangents now, so that’s the end of my rant.

  106. kuhnkat said

    Anthony Hall,

    “Light bulbs are usually positioned near the ceiling, and hot air rises. Most heaters are placed near the ground – so that the warm air can get the best chance of mixing & warming the mass in the room, as it rises.”

    So, you do not believe in the heating properties of IR?? With the temperature of the filament of an incandescent bulb we are talking about a lot of IR that would then radiate all over the room triggering more IR from the surfaces and GHG’s it impacts. The cascade of improved heating probably won’t need any other heat source!!

    Oh wait, that is just a warmists fantasy, that isn’t real physics is it!!! Guess we don’t need to limit any CO2 after all!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  107. Richard111 said

    Its the new economy. All these new greenie thingies are manufactured in China. To meet demand China is building a new “dirty” coal powered station every week. China, when not burning its own brown coal, imports coal in huge quantities from Australia. The transport costs added to the Australian coal probably makes it just as “dirty” as the brown coal CO2 wise.

    Nice one greenies.

  108. dhlii said

    Mr. Hall;
    It is true that there are a small number of people incapable of making decisions for themselves. But people that disabled likely already have someone taking care of them. If you are sufficiently able to make your own decisions regarding what job to take, what career to pursue, what to eat for dinner, then you are sufficiently intelligent to decide what light bulb to use.
    It is entirely possible given the myriads of possible choices that the free market makes available – CFL and LED light bulbs are the product of free markets, and their producers are intensely motivated to persuade purchases of the merits of their product – unfortunately in a free market with a sufficiently powerful government they are also motivated to persuade government of the benefits of forcing that decision. in their interests. I do not think any of us is arguing that any type of light bulb is always the best choice. Nor are we arguing that consumers will always make the best choice. But given myriads of boon-doggles from government imposed one size fits all solutions, free people in free markets could hardly do worse.
    I personally take offence whenever I am told that the problem is stupid and misled people. If a person is too stupid to pick a light bulb, they are too stupid to buy a car, pick a breakfast cereal or vote. As to misled – other comments on this blog make it clear than even if CFL’s are the right choice much of the time, nothing is the right choice all of the time. The law on light-bulbs like all the laws passed because we are too stupid to make our own decisions, fairs worse on the stupidity front. It reduces our freedom, and the quality of the choices it forces are not arguably better.
    I like and use CFL’s – though I do not like being forced too. I expect them to improve and I expect other improvements moving forward. Contrary to the green rant, the efficiency of our use of energy is and has been increasing substantially and little of the improvement is driven by government. The result is that we use more, not less energy.

  109. Brian H said

    Re: dhlii (Jul 15 10:09),
    It is notable and typical that the “help” the gubmint is giving on light-bulb choice consists of removing the choice.
    That’s all that needs be said.

    AH;
    Yep; Lindzen and WUWT have infinitely more ‘nous’ and cred than Trenberth and RC.
    Despite being designed, funded and run by a PR firm, while Anthony is entirely self-funded (with occasional project-oriented contributions from readers), RC is rightly ranked on the Web as a distant also-ran compared to the #1 WUWT.

  110. Joshua said

    One of the several ignorant things that president Bush did was sign a law banning incandescent lights.

    Interesting. 109 comments on a post where the first statement is flat out incorrect.

    I haven’t read the thread – but I wonder whether anyone bothered to note Jeff’s misstatement of fact.

    You know, because no one would want facts to get in the way of railing against evil gubmint, now would they?

    Much better to avoid facts and dream about that gubmint-less Shangri-la.

    You know, like in those low tax countries that have existed for centuries all over the planet with more “freedom” and lower taxes. Like Bahrain, perhaps?

  111. Jeff Id said

    Crazy people all over the internet.

  112. Kan said

    Joshua has chosen the category Dates in the Past 2 Years.

    For $100 – On Dec 19th, 2009 what U.S. President signed the 822 page bill into law that included the complete ban of the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the United States in 2014?

    Tick, Tock

  113. RomanM said

    Re: Kan (Jul 21 01:40),

    On Dec 19th, 2007, … (or were you just setting up the clueless Joshua? ;) )

  114. In my opinion, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, have been “shadow boxing” since 1972.

    Today’s news on PhysOrg.com is the conclusion to secret agreements that literally “changed the world” on 21-28 February 1972:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/china/sfeature/nixon.html

    “Atlantis began its re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere Thursday ahead of a final homecoming that brings down the curtain on NASA’s 30-year space shuttle program”

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-shuttle-atlantis.html

    See related events [1-4] below:

    1. Nature 240, 99 (1972) [NASA NGR 26-003-057]

    Data: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm

    2. Proc. 3rd Lunar Science Conf. 2, 1927-1945 (1972)
    [NASA NGR 26-003-057]

    Data: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

    3. Time Magazine US (24 June 1974)

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    4. Newsweek (28 April 1975)

    http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    NASA NGR 26-003-057

  115. Tamara said

    Anthony Hall said
    July 10, 2011 at 10:55 pm
    “Just accept that Governments usually legislate for solid reasons”

    The stock portfolios of Congressmen and Senators significantly out-perform those of corporate insiders. I’d say those solid reasons have dollar signs all over them.

    Tell us another one, Anthony.

  116. Joshua said

    On Dec 19th, 2007,

    The problem with getting your news from Jeff Id and the World Net Daily:

    From WND:

    Congress bans incandescent bulbs
    Massive energy bill phases out Edison’s invention by 2014.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45156

    The reality:

    There is no looming ban or phase out of incandescent bulbs. The entire hullabaloo is based on a fictitious claim manufactured by Barton [and Jeff Id].

    All major lighting manufacturers, including Philips, Sylvania and GE, currently produce and sell incandescent light bulbs that meet or exceed the new standards (with no compromise in functionality). In fact, the lighting industry helped craft the 2007 legislation with the full understanding that they could produce incandescent bulbs that meet them.

    Unfortunately, these easy-to-prove facts have not prevented Barton, Bachmann and others from pushing legislation to scuttle the new standards. Barton’s legislation, dubbed “The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act” (H.R. 2417), is scheduled for a floor vote in the House of Representatives this evening.

    The bulb ban rhetoric is a deliberate misrepresentation of a provision of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (ESIA) that sets efficiency standards for general-purpose screw-in incandescent light bulbs. The new standards—for what the industry calls “medium screw-based bulbs”—are set to take effect in January.

    Major lighting manufacturers helped draft the new standards so that they could avoid a patchwork of state standards. They are fighting the repeal proposal because it threatens to strand the investments they have made to retool and produce lighting products that meet the standards.

    In addition to claiming that the incandescent bulb is being banned and that we are all going to be forced to use compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), Barton is also saying that bulbs meeting the new standards are cost prohibitive.

    Again, not true. A Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures. For four bucks you can buy an incandescent that lasts 3000 hours and nets you more than $10 in energy savings.

    Oh – and btw, you might take note of this also, as you wind yourselves up into another of your whiny libertarian rants about that those statist libz and their evil gubmint:

    Legislation establishing common-sense efficiency standards for energy-using equipment has traditionally enjoyed overwhelming support from conservatives. The first such legislation was signed into law 25 years ago by President Ronald Reagan. Thanks to the legislation enacted by Reagan and similar laws signed by his successors, Americans are saving billions of dollars on their utility bills.

    http://www.frumforum.com/there-is-no-light-bulb-ban

    I WANT MY LIGHT BULBS BACK!!!!111!!!1!!!

  117. Joshua said

    The stock portfolios of Congressmen and Senators significantly out-perform those of corporate insiders..

    So do index funds.

  118. Carrick said

    Joshua:

    Again, not true. A Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures. For four bucks you can buy an incandescent that lasts 3000 hours and nets you more than $10 in energy savings.

    I have a bridge for you in Brooklyn, Arizona ocean beachfront and lunar craters, if you believe the horse shit about the longer life time. Hell, I’ll even through in a star to sweeten the deal.

    I can buy an “old fashion” incandescent that costs 50 cents, this costs 3x more.

    As to saving energy, depends entirely on summer versus winter as Jeff corrected pointed out and Joshua was too slow follow. (FWIW, I replace the incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents for summer time use…and it does save me money even if real-world the life time isn’t any longer.)

    It’s a “not ban” that really is a ban (the old-styled bulbs are being phased out, fact of life, polish a turd and you still have a turd).

  119. Kan said

    Joshua,

    I see the bigger picture now – the guv’ment just wants to save me money? And all this time I just thought they were just telling me what to do, all in the name of some GOOD THING.

    What was that GOOD THING again – lost in the wisps of time, now is it?

    Yes, about GE, that paragon of corporate virtue and trust. Who is Obama’s job czar again (and how’s he doing**)? It’s seems just a wee bit cozy on the old oval office couch.

    **GE World Wide employment numbers
    2008 – 327,000
    2011 – 304,000

    RomanM – just had to check.

  120. Anonymous said

    Joshua,

    You are not aware of what you are listening to.

    “All major lighting manufacturers, including Philips, Sylvania and GE, currently produce and sell incandescent light bulbs that meet or exceed the new standards (with no compromise in functionality). In fact, the lighting industry helped craft the 2007 legislation with the full understanding that they could produce incandescent bulbs that meet them.”

    The first step in the legislation was enough to ban the standard incandescent in exchange for a halogen incandescent . At about 5x the cost for a very small gain in efficiency. The next step will take them out entirely. And yes the lighting industry was involved because as you’ll note, the bulbs cost about 5x more.

    Don’t be stupid Josh, read the rules, read about the products and when you are done ask yourself why the lighting industry would be on board with banning an entire product line that they have been making for decades. The question answers itself.

  121. Tamara said

    Joshua,

    http://www.integrity-research.com/cms/2011/07/06/senators-best-hedge-funds/

    Try again.

  122. Joshua said

    ask yourself why the lighting industry would be on board with banning an entire product line that they have been making for decades. The question answers itself.

    er. It wasn’t a ban.

    So now we have even more people in on the conspiracy to limit our freedoms.

    Those statist libz in gubmint. Those mouthpiece Republicans who are just the puppets of those statist libz. Fake “conservatives” like Reagan who think that gubmint has a role to play in regulating protection of the environment and public health. Members of the American public who elect statist libz and puppet “conservatives.”

    And, the entire private sector that profits from the aggregation of statist libz,their puppet Republicans, pseudo-“conservatives,” and the American sheeple.

    I truly appreciate the self-sacrificing of libertarians – who stand up against the ferocious tide and fight the good fight to protect what few freedoms we have left. Just link of how much better life is when we can use less economical and inefficient (at least in the summer) light bulbs. It must be awfully lonely with so many forces aligned against you.

    Please, whatever you don’t do, don’t give up the fight and move to one of those many nations with lower taxes and smaller government – you know, like Bahrain.

  123. Anonymous said

    er, yes it was.

    The efficiencies demanded in the coming years are greater than the Planck limits for a black body.

    So, er, you see, ’tis a ban.

  124. John M said

    Nope, not a ban. Just legislation that is causing people to stock up on “non-banned” light bulbs that cost $0.25 a piece because they won’t be able to buy them in a few years.

    No sir. Not a ban at all.

    And of course, corporations wouldn’t be complicent in banning cheap products so they could sell more expensive ones, would they?

    You know, it’s funny, some days it seems I can’t spit in the latrine without coming across a liberal who is convinced “GM killed the streetcar”. The story goes that GM bought up all the street car companies and got rid of all those nice inexpensive modes of transportation that everyone was clamoring to ride on in order to make a fortune selling evil automobiles.

    Yet we’re now told that simialr companies want to get rid of cheap light bulbs because it’s the right thing to do and the companies are run by geniuses.

    Interesting.

  125. Joshua said

    Yet we’re now told that simialr companies want to get rid of cheap light bulbs because it’s the right thing to do and the companies are run by geniuses.

    Who, in god’s name, is telling you that? You’ve been talking to libz who think that companies are motivated by doing social good and doing the right thing? Really?

  126. John M said

    Major lighting manufacturers helped draft the new standards so that they could avoid a patchwork of state standards. They are fighting the repeal proposal because it threatens to strand the investments they have made to retool and produce lighting products that meet the standards.

    The standards are the “non-ban” we’re talking about.

    I thought we were supposed to be against special interests “helping to draft government standards”.

  127. Jeff Id said

    I for one am glad that we have powerful minds like Joshua to point out to people like me what the ‘right thing to do’ is. I see now that it doesn’t matter that the physics of CO2 savings balances the other way, it isn’t the right thing.

    I hereby formally retract the entire post.

  128. John M said

    Careful Jeff, there are some obtuse types that might proclaim this as your surrender and their victory.

  129. Joshua said

    Jeff – is it your belief that your observations – about the heat value of incandescent bulbs that don’t meet the legislated standards -notwithstanding, swapping out newer bulbs (incandescent or otherwise) that do meet the standards wouldn’t in balance: (1) lead to less energy consumption overall, (2) lead to cost savings overall, and (3) lead to less CO2 emissions overall?

    You may have a point about the exact nature of that balance contingent on a precise quantification of un-specified trade-offs, and the value of reduced energy consumption, costs savings, and reduced CO emissions might be debatable, but I’m not quite sure that questioning the precise quantification of the trade-offs supports conspiratorial rants about the crushing nature of the Republican/Democrat/eco-Nazi/Sheeple/statist/private sector alliance that limits our god-given, inalienable natural rights – of which light bulb choice is just one particularly meaningful example of the myriad examples available.

  130. Jeff Id said

    As the title may suggest Josh, we really don’t need you to think for us.

  131. Joshua said

    Jeff – where in the world did you see evidence that I think that I believe I should think for you?

    More fantasizing about “libz?” Just because in your head I’m telling you something doesn’t mean that it’s a reality outside of your imagination.

  132. Joshua said

    Oh – and I asked you a question. Since you did write a non-sequitur of a response, you’re clearly reading. Thanks for reading.

    Now, perhaps now you’ll bother to answer the question?

  133. Jeff Id said

    Because you openly support a regulation to establish bulk ‘efficiency’ standards for lightbulbs without understaning or even considering the consequence of your action. No rule is required – as you can see from the answers on this thread. People already save the energy where they find appropriate.

    Your fascination with doing the right thing (pulling the right lever) is the downfall of the liberal argument. It costs money for the government to regulate. It costs money for people to use an expensive source when the lamp is used for less than a couple of hours a year. Engine lights, workbenches, garages, etc… If a source is really so bad, people will chose the better one automatically. So you have achieved zero savings for extra cost. Nice work.

    Pull away my friend, no reasoning will stop you anyway.

  134. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    I will take the time to answer your questions. Then I will point out that they are the wrong questions.

    Will the regulations –(1) lead to less energy consumption overall, (2) lead to cost savings overall, and (3) lead to less CO2 emissions overall?

    maybe, maybe and maybe.

    I was tempted to give the simple 3 yes answer except that the production of lamps also uses energy. The extra shipping, electronic components, and disposal costs may tip the balance in favor of old style incandescent. Let’s assume that you are right with your wild assed guess that it is 3 yeses. It is your guess, because you support the regulation and you obviously have not considered the ‘detail’ of it.

    If you and your (naively assumed) well intentioned liberal friends in government are correct and there is less energy consumption overall, my questions are: How much less is it truly?, How much did the reduction cost?, Could the money spent on this regulation have benefited more elsewhere?

    I ask very similar questions about all 3.

    Unfortunately, I and others here are quite experienced in some aspects of AGW, and I flatly challenge you to show me mathematically that you would be able to detect ANY difference in CO2 emissions from these standards. You probably don’t do math though. You probably just ‘do the right thing’. Can you even tell me the fraction of energy consumption used by incandescent lighting? I bet not. I bet the thought rarely crosses a green mind. How many horsepower is a 60Watt incandescent lamp? How does that compare to a drive in your car?

    As to where the regulation, retooling, enforcement money could be better spent — you should be able to figure that out.

    A twist on the old saying – Fools and my money are soon parted.

  135. Joshua said

    Let’s assume that you are right with your wild assed guess that it is 3 yeses.

    I don’t “assume” any answers. My point is that conspiracy theories, based on facile assumptions that the answers are no, are, well, conspiracy theories.

    If you and your (naively assumed) well intentioned liberal friends in government are correct and there is less energy consumption overall…

    I don’t assume any answers. My point is that conspiracy theories, based on facile assumptions that the answers are no, are, well, conspiracy theories.

    How much less is it truly?, How much did the reduction cost?, Could the money spent on this regulation have benefited more elsewhere?

    Good questions. I don’t assume to know the answers.

    I ask very similar questions about all 3.

    And they are good questions.

    and I flatly challenge you to show me mathematically that you would be able to detect ANY difference in CO2 emissions from these standards.

    Perhaps you could wait to make that challenge for me to assert that it could be mathematically proven? Are you hearing little greens in your head again?

    I bet the thought rarely crosses a green mind.

    Fantasizing about me yet again?

    You’re asking good questions, Jeff. It’s your conspiratorial ranting about the evils of gubmint that I’m laughing at – and the incorrect statements (about bans) that are the basis for your apparent beliefs about the totalitarian, statist, miseries we suffer as the result of imperfections in our democratic processes.

  136. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    If your answers are honest, all you now need to do is some internet searching to determine if others have answered the questions before forcing the regulations on us.

  137. Jeff Id said

    The use of the word “ban” is correct. Check the rules and the Planck limits on incandescent. If efficiencies conveniently pass a first hurdle to halogens, then a second eliminating anything with a filament, are they ‘allowing’ use?????? how many [snip] question marks are required to power your lightbulb.

  138. page488 said

    Leaving all the politics aside, I just want to make a few practical comments about CFL’s.

    I am an artist who does very close work. I changed my work lights to CFL’s before it became politcally expedient to do so because they were advertised as being “full spectrum” and better than incandescents all around.

    Bullshit.

    I can’t see with the damn things. If I can’t see what I’m doing really well, my work suffers.

    I changed back to incandescents and have had no problems since.

    I did stockpile a bunch of incandescents.

    If I had to use CFL’s in my work I would either go blind or broke very quickly.

    It’s great to be back! Most of you probably don’t remember me, but I hope a few do because I started posting shortly after Jeff started the site..

    Take care all!

  139. buy solar gadgets…

    [...]Decisions we don’t need your help with « the Air Vent[...]…

  140. green energy…

    [...]Decisions we don’t need your help with « the Air Vent[...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: