Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RuralandRight





Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 618
Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5
votes: 5
Location: Rural Canada

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bishop Hill's blog has a great summary of leaked files. http://bishophill.squarespace......gs-33.html
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Call for a congressional investigation into "Climategate"...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....p;Issue_id
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7528
Reputation: 301.2Reputation: 301.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Pissedoff wrote:
I suppose this is why Harper and the cons are banning the incandescent light bulb so all the landfills and water table get poisoned with these mercury filled toxic CFLs

Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article.....3520070425

I'm not a fan of banning things. All it does is create black market opportunities.

With any amount of luck, LED lights will be affordable by that time. They're more efficient, longer-lasting and can be closer to natural light than CFLs.

-Mac


The Incandescent Ban that was passed in certain US states before it was even a thought in Canada caused an explosion of R&D among the big four legit LED manufacturers.

The "latest and greatest" that I have on my desk right now gives me three times the lumen output at about half the power consumption as the cutting edge unit from earlier this year, with a MTBF of >100,000 hours.

The LED technology is easily there to do your home, but it will cost more.
As the price drops I suspect we will see CFL as a stop gap technology.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
The LED technology is easily there to do your home, but it will cost more.
As the price drops I suspect we will see CFL as a stop gap technology.


I have found that the LED packages overstate the light values. They say they are 25 watt equivalent. They are more like 15 watt equivalent in terms of light output.

But the technology will continue to improve...
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The part of the equation that a lot of "let the market do its thing" people don't realize is that the cost of electricity is HEAVILY subsidized. Just look at the debt that Ontario Hydro has taken on. If the market was really working and prices of electricity represented the TRUE cost to produce it you can bet that incandescent lights would be long gone now thanks to the free market.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
The part of the equation that a lot of "let the market do its thing" people don't realize is that the cost of electricity is HEAVILY subsidized. Just look at the debt that Ontario Hydro has taken on. If the market was really working and prices of electricity represented the TRUE cost to produce it you can bet that incandescent lights would be long gone now thanks to the free market.

Good points.

Mind you, subsidized in this context means paid for by tax payers. It might be cash neutral if the subsidies were dumped but people would have the choice whether to leave the lights on or shut them off. Talk about a magnificent way to cut taxes AND energy consumption!!

-Mac
Alan A.





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 237
Reputation: 22.4Reputation: 22.4
votes: 4
Location: Western Canada

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If only I could talk. Damn, if only I could talk. I know personally a few earth climate scientists xxxx has worked with, who are probably getting a bit nervous as we speak. But don't pay attention; I'm just some anonymous forum clown without any credibility, am I.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7528
Reputation: 301.2Reputation: 301.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
The LED technology is easily there to do your home, but it will cost more.
As the price drops I suspect we will see CFL as a stop gap technology.


I have found that the LED packages overstate the light values. They say they are 25 watt equivalent. They are more like 15 watt equivalent in terms of light output.

But the technology will continue to improve...


The problem with residential stuff is that during its production process the only factor that seems to matter is price point.

If you have a look at stuff that many of the new railcars and Locomotives are using internally and externally its stunning.

Right now the cheapest LED's are the bullet style units which about three cents each whereas the really good product which is brighter and runs at a very low rate of power consumption are about 1.50 - 3.50 an LED depending on type and color temp, then you need to deal with resisters Vs. proper LED drivers which really effect output as well.

Right now if you wanted to do it with new style LED's in your home you would be looking at about 120 bucks per pot light drop in, and that should last you 200,000 hours (with a 20% degradation from hour 1 Vs. hour 200,000)

With 3W of power being used rather then 75W, with a 10-20% increase in light output (depending on color temp)

Its pricey, but its getting close.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alan A. wrote:
If only I could talk. Damn, if only I could talk. I know personally a few earth climate scientists xxxx has worked with, who are probably getting a bit nervous as we speak. But don't pay attention; I'm just some anonymous forum clown without any credibility, am I.

Very curious, indeed....

-Mac
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alan A. wrote:
If only I could talk. Damn, if only I could talk. I know personally a few earth climate scientists xxxx has worked with, who are probably getting a bit nervous as we speak. But don't pay attention; I'm just some anonymous forum clown without any credibility, am I.


I used to work at the University of Waterloo's Earth Observations Laboratory...

http://watleo.uwaterloo.ca/index_intro_e.cfm

And most of the work done by scientists there was global warming related. I wonder what they think of this.
Alan A.





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 237
Reputation: 22.4Reputation: 22.4
votes: 4
Location: Western Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I used to work at the University of Waterloo's Earth Observations Laboratory...

http://watleo.uwaterloo.ca/index_intro_e.cfm

And most of the work done by scientists there was global warming related. I wonder what they think of this.


Ditto. Different place, late 1980s, while it was all brewing up, unknown by the public.

If we wanted grants for our research, we had to jump in that trendy bandwagon --it was called 'global change' back then. The budgets allocated for other research topics were very meager. And the global change gang ($$) was led by a closed circle of friends working all together, peer-reviewing their friends' work. And I've seen what they can do with the data. Most researchers want the results to match their hypothesis, otherwise they feel diminished as they were wrong from day one; it's human. The 'global change' bandwagon was cozy and safe ($$) if you stayed in. When I understood that, I quit. I can't say more, just that I've been raging inside ever since.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alan A. wrote:
When I understood that, I quit. I can't say more, just that I've been raging inside ever since.

According to the script, that means you must be in the pocket of Big Oil, right? :lol:

-Mac
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After sending emails to the Prim Minister and Jim Prentice to miss Copenhagen on go on their own dime, I see Steven is now going again. Just because Obama changed his mind?
machiavelli





Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Reputation: 66.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Canada had a legitimate small-c fiscal conservative government they would stand up fervently and passionately as opponents of any kind of cap-and-trade system. Rather, the cap-and-trade system that left-plunging Harper and his left-wing environmental minister Prentice keep referring to is a stealth strategy for an enormous disingenuous, long-term tax increase on all Canadian households. Cap & Trade would evolve around an economic Ponzi scheme that includes an enormous new source of tax revenue to the Canadian government to allow it to continue to expand into the private sector, demolishing thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs, the emergence of global governance, create a temple of dome which would lock in devastating disasters for our children's generation, and a devastating transfer of wealth from wealth producers to wealth wasters.

This tax increase and wealth transferring vehicle would immediately increase the costs of goods and services such as gasoline, electricity and a wide range of industrial products. The increase in the price of Canadian goods would make them less competitive. Canadian firms would suffer in export markets and domestically in competition with goods imported from countries that do not impose such a high implicit tax on CO2 emissions. There would no doubt be pressure to impose tariffs on imports from other countries that have lower carbon costs. Countervailing tariffs base on carbon content would hurt Canadian consumers, destroy thousands of jobs, and threaten our global trading system.

Any candid, forthright genuine small-c fiscal conservative would verify that the “Cap & Tax” tax system is nothing less that the extreme left’s new, socialistic approach to redistribute wealth from wealth producers to others. An ingenuous small-c fiscal conservative, contrasting our CINO PM, would divulge that the “Cap & Tax” system is just another version of Trudeau’s National Energy Program which also was created to transfer wealth from the west.

If Canada had a authentic, candid fiscal, social and judicial small-c conservative as PM, he would informed us that the climate has not changed in the last eleven years, and therefore, he would not annihilate the Canadian economy just to please the left-wing extremists who insist on transferring wealth.
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice post machiavelli. It is a pity we do not have a small c conservative party. That is who I thought I had been voting for but I was wrong. Time for Reform 2 or the LIbertarians.i
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Climate Scientist's Files LEAKED!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB