SLance68

The info on Flat Screens is incorrect. I have a Flat Screen Tubed TV it is a Sony and is 2 years old and weighs a ton. What they should have said is FLAT PANEL not Flat Screens.

3lilpigs

Well if that's the case, then we're not being forced to buy the newer more expensive light bulbs, because the cheaper ones are still out there. They still make them.

My whole point, regardless of the technical terms of tv's, was that we are forced to buy what the manufacturers want to sell us, whether we like it or not.

And once your ''old'' product breaks, it's almost impossible to have it fixed. (Or it would cost less to buy THEIR newer product).

__________________
"If common sense were common.....everyone would have it."

atprm

that point is not right 3lil.

it is not going to be illegal to own or use a tube tv ... and you are not being forced to buy an LCD or Plasma...

on the flip side, you are being forced to buy florescent bulbs over incandescent bulbs...and they will stop making them this year.


it's like trying to find similarities between Peanut Brittle and Pumpernickel Bread.

__________________
2 days from now, tomorrow will be yesterday.

Warner Ath

Get yourself a new 1080 hdtv. You will love it. The picture is great and the and the signal comes to you right over the air, free as a bird. I will be glad to see low definition tv go.

janelle

If you can wait awhile the new technology always gets cheaper. Computers are cheaper now.

I do hate those new light bulbs though. When you first turn them on you still can't see anything since they are dim and then get lighter. You need to wait for them to get bright enough to see. I say just leave them on all the time which is a waste.

The low flush toilets need to be flushed two or three times so where is the water savings on them? Our lawn mower has less power so it needs to be pushed even though it says self propelled. Any little incline the self propelled is a joke. The old mowers use to pull US up the hill and we got the job done in half the time.

They say buy small cars then tell parents they need a car seat for each child. If you have more than two kids you need to buy an SUV or a VAN, no getting around it. Big bulky car seats for saftey but we need to save on gas, that is a joke. Does anyone making up these rules think ahead?

atprm

that is one of the problems I have with them also Janelle -- the fact that when you turn them on, you still can't see anything and to leave them on is a drain on energy.

I think that they are thinking ahead ... making it so screwy that they are just lining their own coffers in the process.

"make the people follow rule A. but in order for them to do that, they need to buy rule B and C."

__________________
2 days from now, tomorrow will be yesterday.

SLance68

The reason the lamps don't seem as bright is that the lumens are low on the lamps you are purchasing. I noticed this when I bought a 3 pack - didn't even pay attention to the lumens until I got home and put one up in my hall and it wasn't very bright they were 780 lumens. So I returned them and got some that were 900 lumens and they are very bright. Lumens is the "new" word for foot candles which is the old way lights were measured.

janelle

We got the 750 lumens but doesn't all of them come on really low light and then go to bright? It's like turning on a night light when you enter the room and have to wait until it gets "fired" up. Just irritating to me. I need to see as soon as I enter a room. I want to find something right away, not wait until I can see clearly.

And these are supposed to last for 7 years. 7 years of irritation. Roll eyes.

atprm

__________________
2 days from now, tomorrow will be yesterday.

Jolie Rouge

Greenhouse gases to lead to ice age?
By TigerHawk at 1/01/2009 08:01:00 PM

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/0...o-ice-age.html

We've been told for years that rising levels of "greenhouse gases," particularly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, will raise the temperature of the planet catastrophically. Now comes a study that says that greenhouse gases could lead to the next ice age: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...cientists.html

Ah, that clarifies things. We do not know what greenhouse gases will do, only that it will be bad. Apparently, the only optimum level of greenhouse gas is that which prevailed shortly before the invention of the internal combustion engine and electricity. Check. That's why it is essential that we regulate ourselves into poverty even if there is declining evidence that the planet is warming. It might be cooling!

We cannot help but wonder whether Barack Obama will ask James Hansen about any of this following his "personal appeal" to the president-elect and future first lady.


Meanwhile, from a University of Oregon news release dated tomorrow:
http://pmr.uoregon.edu/science-and-i...ond-rich-soil/


On the one hand, we have to give these guys credit. They realize that anthropogenic CO2 is a mechanism only for global warming -- not for generalized climate change. So they are trying to plug one of the gaping holes in their religious (oops, scientific) beliefs. But they still can't quite get it right.

Note the comical misuse of "global warming" as a cause of glaciation where they ought to have said "anthropogenic CO2".

But if CO2 was naturally higher 630 million years ago, without any possible anthropogenic influence, then is it possible that recent rises in CO2 are also natural, not anthropogenic? How would a real scientist go about disproving that obvious possibility?

And, to state the obvious, life on Earth survived that dreadful time of high CO2 630 million years ago, so what's the problem?

As religions go, this global warming/climate change one is pretty lame.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Nasa scientist warns Obama
Award-winning researcher James Hansen says new president's rhetoric must be backed by action

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...n-barack-obama

Current approaches to deal with climate change are ineffectual, one of the world's top climate scientists said today in a personal new year appeal to Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on the urgent need to tackle global warming.

With less than three weeks to go until Obama's inauguration, Prof James Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asked the recently appointed White House science adviser Prof John Holdren to pass the missive directly to the president-elect.

Obama spoke repeatedly during his campaign about the need to tackle climate change, and environmentalists fervently hope he will live up to his promises to pursue green policies.

The letter, from Hansen and his wife Anniek, is a personal plea to the first couple. It begins: "We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born … Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal."

In a covering letter to Holdren, Hansen explains that he wrote the letter a few weeks ago while in London. His wife had suffered a heart attack ("fortunately we were near a very good hospital") and while they waited for doctors to give the go-ahead to fly back to the US he decided to compose his petition to the new first family.

Hansen has been one of the most prominent advocates of action to tackle climate change since he first spoke on the issue at congressional hearings in the 1980s. His testimony to the senate featured in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and he has received numerous honours for his work on the issue, including the WWF's top conservation award.

Hansen wrote that there is a "profound disconnect" between public policy on climate change and the magnitude of the problem as described by the science. He praised Obama's campaign rhetoric about "a planet in peril", but said that how the new president responds in office will be crucial. The letter contains a wish list of three policy measures to tackle global warming.

Hansen lambasts the current international approach of setting targets to be met through "cap and trade" schemes as not up to the task. "This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity," the Hansens wrote.

The letter will make uncomfortable reading for officials in 10 north-eastern and middle–Atlantic states whose carbon cap and trade mechanism – the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – got under way today. The scheme is the first mandatory, market-based greenhouse gas reduction programme in the US and it aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 10% by 2018.

Hansen advocates a three-pronged attack on the climate problem – all measures he has promoted before. First, he wants a moratorium and phase-out of coal-fired power stations – which he calls "factories of death" – that do not incorporate carbon capture and storage.

"Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run," the Hansens wrote.

Second, he proposes a "carbon tax and 100% dividend": a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.

Finally, Hansen wants a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel. "In our opinion [fourth generation nuclear power] deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material."

Hansen argues that the current emphasis on reduction targets combined with carbon trading schemes make it too easy for countries to wriggle out of their commitments. He cites the example of Japan's increasing coal use – the dirtiest fuel in terms of carbon emissions. To offset these increases in emissions Japan has bought credits from China through the clean development mechanism – an instrument set up by the Kyoto protocol – yet China's emissions have continued to increase rapidly. China has now overtaken the US as the biggest polluter in the world.

"Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source," the Hansens wrote.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?