I Love Patton Oswalt »« Prelutsky’s Stream of Consciousness Stupidity

Why the New Light Bulbs Matter

As of January 1, there will be no more old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs produced or sold in the United States (there are newer halogen incandescent bulbs, however, which use considerably less energy). The Natural Resources Defense Council explains why this matters:

Six years ago, President Bush signed a federal energy bill phasing out energy-wasting light bulbs on a staggered schedule to ensure a smooth and successful transition to more efficient bulbs – and eventually save Americans $13 billion on their annual energy bills….

Consumers now have three major types of bulbs to choose from: new and improved incandescents that use 28% less energy, and CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs (light-emitting diodes) that provide energy savings of at least 75% and last a lot longer…

And technological advances — like the GE 43W bulb below that replaces the 60-watt incandescent — have already saved homeowners and businesses billions of dollars on their energy bills. The new standards eventually will save as much electricity as is generated by 30 large coal-burning power plants – and the associated pollution that harms our health and contributes to climate change – every single year.

That’s pretty staggering. And it’s good public policy, despite the ridiculous screams of “TYRANNY!” from the right.

Comments

  1. neonsequitur says

    I’m tired of hearing about how long these “new” light bulbs are supposed to last. I keep installing them, and they keep dying after a few weeks/months, then they cost a fortune to replace. They’re a complete rip-off, and NO they are not saving me any money.

    Someone’s making a fortune selling this defective crap, and now they’ve convinced our government that we should be forced to buy it. It’s not tyranny, it’s just (big) business as usual in America.

  2. says

    What is so funny is listening to rightards screeching that this is “yet another case of Obama being a tyrant.” They are incapable of hearing that the legislation was passed by a Republican controlled Congress and signed by Shrub himself.

  3. Dunc says

    I keep installing them, and they keep dying after a few weeks/months

    Then you have a problem with your electrical supply or your wiring. You might want to get that checked out.

  4. tubi says

    Re #1

    You might want to try a different brand, or halogen instead of CFLs. I’ve had very few problems with CFLs, including a 200W equivalent in my garage for about 3 years, throughout Minnesota winters.

  5. blf says

    I switched to CFLs soon after I deemed them affordable (c.10£ (this was in the UK) for a 60W-equivalent), in c.1990, and have used them ever since. Literally “them”, the same fecking CFLs I bought over twenty years ago. They have a noticeably better build-quality than a newer CFL I bought c.6 years ago. Some, but not all, are now suffering from the dim-when-first-turned-on problem, but originally none did.

    I also recently moved apartments, and in the process have switched to LED bulbs, since I now deem them affordable (c.15€ for a 60W-equivalent). To-date, the LED bulbs have been working great, albeit I seem to perceive a tiny delay before they light up when turned on (doesn’t bother me).

    Sadly, I have no sensible comparisons of electrical usage before/after either change.

  6. Mr Ed says

    1- Neonsequitur I found that the CFL fail quickly when they are frequently cycled on and off, like in the bathroom. I’ve had the one in the garage last years. Try the LED bulbs.

  7. inquisitiveraven says

    Neonsequitur @ 1: Maybe you’re not using the right bulb for the application? Fluorescent bulbs are best used in places where they will be on for hours at time. Cycling them on and off shortens their lifespan. Halogen bulbs and LED bulbs don’t have that issue although with halogen bulbs you have to be careful not to touch the glass with bare skin when handling them. I’ve used compact fluorescent bulbs since 1992, and most of them have lasted years. I initially switched because I had an overhead fixture that apparently ate incandescent bulbs (as in I was replacing them every few days). Brand matters too (Lights of America I’m looking at you).

  8. dmcclean says

    @1
    The compact fluorescents can suffer from infant mortality, especially if they are used on circuits where they will see dirty power (behind dimmers, or with noise from inductive appliances).

    They are kind of a transitional technology for that reason, and because of the need for special disposal.

    If you can afford the up front cost, the LED ones have gotten really good. The light quality is quite similar to incandescents, they are dimmable, and they don’t have that infant morality problem even here in our engineering shop where we do all sorts of horrible things to the power.

  9. Abby Normal says

    I’m lucky. I’ve had my CFL bulbs about 8 years now. I haven’t had to replace any of them.

  10. lancifer says

    Ed,

    If they are so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy them rather than being forced to buy them?

    Most of the light fixtures in my home are controlled by dimmer switches. Most (if not all) of the CFL and LCD bulbs available cannot be dimmed by these switches. Some LCDs can be dimmed using special (read expensive) dimmer switches which would require me to retrofit all of my switches to work ONLY with dimmable LCD bulbs.

    I have purchased cases of 100 watt and 60 watt bulbs (purchased at less than 20 cents each) that I will use until I decide there is a suitable and affordable replacement .

    As far as saving us from the evil coal fired plants is concerned, you have been been duped by a group that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.

    Ed, I’m a bit disappointed that you have swallowed the NRDC’s propaganda and are repeating it here, rather than advocating for Americans to make their own decisions about what light bulbs to purchase.

    Perhaps you think the federal government should make more of our everyday decisions?

  11. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    What about lava lamps? :(

    (That’s literally the only downside I can see. >.>)

  12. mobius says

    A few years ago, I laid out the cash to replace (nearly) all the incandescent bulbs in my house with compact florescents. Sure, the bulbs cost more up front, but they only use about 1/4 the electricity and last about 5 times as long as the old style incandescents. Over time, a savings..

  13. says

    I switched to CFLs starting back in 1992 making the switch over about 5 years. I probably started saving at least $20 per month. And yes, some of the bulbs only lasted a few months but the overwhelming majority of them were still working when I removed them all over the last 2 years as I switched to LED. I now have 100% LED. And some of the CFLs I removed were the delayed on kind — they were that old!!!

    I sent all the delayed on ones to the recycle center whether they still worked or not and gave all my other CFLs to my niece and daughter.

    I don’t really know how much I’m saving now with LED over CFL because I bought an electric car about 22 months ago which probably averages about $20 dollar more per month to run. (about 900 miles a month). My bill is about $20 less than prior to the LED/electric car so I guess I’m now saving about $40 per month. Added to the prior $20 I saved when switching to CFL that makes about $60 per month.

    I keep hearing about all the premature failure in CFLs but this has never been my experience. Except for maybe 3 bulbs over the 20+ years.

    And so far not a single LED bulb has died. I bought some back up bulbs, like how you always needed incandescents stored in the cupboard because they died so quickly, but I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll ever need them.

  14. says

    Lancifer, I read your post and thought it a bit loopy for FTB, which I tend to see as a more informed group of people. Then I realized when I got to the climate science stuff that you were making a joke. You just had to be. (Not a very good one)

  15. unbound says

    I’ve had a few bad CFL lights, but not that many. The vast majority of my CFL lights (which is almost my entire house at this point) last for several years (I switched about a decade ago, some of my bulbs haven’t been replace from that original batch). Not only do you save from lower energy costs of the bulbs, but you get double savings during the summer with your AC bill since CFLs are a lot cooler than incandescent bulbs.

    A key lesson I learned is to not buy the super cheap-o-brand-I’ve-never-heard-of from a club store. It’s cheaper in the long run to buy moderate priced bulbs. Basically, the same approach you should be using in all your purchases…the cheapest are usually cheapest for a reason…

  16. Johnny Vector says

    Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too:

    What about lava lamps?

    And Todd Robbins! He’s going to need a new bit to replace the eating-a-lightbulb one. Cause neither CFLs nor LEDs are really edible.

    Won’t someone think of the geeks?

  17. mikeym says

    What about lava lamps? :(

    (That’s literally the only downside I can see. >.>)

    EasyBake ovens?

  18. justsomeguy says

    @10: right on about the cycling on and off. There’s a tiny surge of power that happens in the bulbs when they get turned on, and enough of these surges will add up to render the bulb inert. And although it looks the same to the user, a CFL that’s burnt out from excessive on-and-off is different from a CFL that’s burnt out because it’s at the end of its life.

    An irony of fluorescent lights is that they will last longer if you leave them on…. and they’re still cheaper to operate, because of the significant decrease in energy use from traditional incandescents.

  19. dmcclean says

    Not just climate change, markmckee, Lancifer is also happily denying the other adverse consequences of coal fired power plant emissions: mercury and particulate emissions.

    The particulates alone, even with all the cleaning technology we have now (advances Lancifer probably opposed?), are good for a per annum excess mortality of ~10,000. Granted, even newer rules the EPA has announced will, when fully implemented and if they survive a court challenge, reduce that number considerably. I wonder how Lancifer feels about the CSAPR.

    Coal-fired power plants are responsible for about half of mercury emissions in the US. Improved technologies and regulations have reduced the per Joule emissions substantially over the years, but there is still considerable work that can economically be done.

    Environmental mercury causes health problems directly and has also been (at the very least) seriously implicated in leading to increased levels of violent criminal behavior in the population, which is also quite expensive.

    In short, you can be so completely unhinged or committed to your tribe as to believe drivel like:

    As far as saving us from the evil coal fired plants is concerned, you have been been duped by a group that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.

    and still recognize the clear, large, and well-evidenced harms of coal-fired power plant emissions.

  20. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #13

    I see that the blogs resident global warming denier and Koch brothers shill is back with yet another asinine comment. Give it a rest putz.

  21. dave says

    @1 — CFL’s are terrible on dimmed circuits. (It took me about a year to figure that out.) Although there are now, “dimmable” CFLs they still die early in my experience. If you have dimmers, use LEDs. They tend not to dim all the way to zero, but otherwise are great.

    @13 — The government has specified minimum efficiencies for general purpose light bulbs, just like it does for many other products (ex fleet mileage requirements, boiler efficiency requirements.) Industry has decided that it is cheaper and easier to meet those requirements by changing technologies rather than improving the the existing technology. See? Its the Free Market at work! You still have a choice, you can buy the new techologies or you can purchase inefficient bulbs that are not marketed as general purpose. For example, you can go into Home Depot right now an buy a 100W incandescent bulb, despite the fact that they have been “banned” for over a year. Just ask for “Rough Service.” (Be careful to do this at Home Depot and not the local massage parlor.) 40W are available as appliance bulbs. They are a bit smaller, but still use the same base. Yes, they are a bit more expensive, but its still your choice.

  22. says

    In addition to frequent on/off cycles, CFLs fail when they are enclosed in tight quarters where heat cannot dissipate.
    I bought two for my tiny apartment in about ’90/’91 when I got out of college and one still works. It’s godawful light-wise, but I keep it just to see how long it will go.
    I’ve been in my house 13 years and only two — (one being one of those bought two decades ago) and one other one that was in a tight-fitting cover in the hallway — have burned out.
    I wish they WOULD burn out faster so I can replace them with LEDs, but since energy use is about the same between the two there’s no sense in replacing perfectly good bulbs.

  23. jaranath says

    Lancifer:
    If the energy came from totally non-polluting unicorn poop and incandescent bulbs were free, CFL and LED lighting would STILL be the smart decision. You are literally burning your own money to spite your ideological opponents.

    Nonsequitur:
    As others have said, I suspect your results are not typical. Your power supply, environment or usage patterns may be part of the problem, but you may also be buying crappy bulbs. As the market for these products has expanded you’ve seen some pretty cheap junk hitting the shelves. I would switch brands until you find one that works well.

    The same applies to LEDs, especially in the early stages. LEDs are theoretically more efficient than CFLs but in practice they are currently just equivalent. Their primary advantages lie in durability (with a big asterisk), adaptability to very unconventional fixture designs, and instant-on capability.

    LEDs have come a LONG way in quality and price over the last few years, but still, there are a lot of poor designs out there with circuits likely to fail, or just aesthetically poor designs (like bulbs that leave the diodes exposed to provide painfully bright pinpoint sources). I recommend most people choose CFLs over LEDs for now and let the LED market cook a few more years. CFLs are cheaper and just as efficient.

    However, I do recommend LEDs for some specialized applications if you shop smart. For instance, if you are using a CFL which is encased in a glass capsule, such as goes in many floodlight fixtures, you may have noticed the lights start extremely dim and have an unusually long warm-up time (a minute or more), which bare “pigtail” CFLs lack. I’ve never gotten a straight answer but I believe this has to do with the glass capsule requiring heat-tolerant phosphor compositions. A good LED light in those settings is the perfect answer, as it should look identical and come on instantly at full brightness.

    Either way, if something about your lighting environment is damaging the bulbs, you may not get better results with LEDs or other CFL brands and may need to look at using halogens, or having your home wiring inspected

    Markmckee:
    I hate to tell you but you’re probably saving nothing with the LEDs. Any efficiency advantage at this current stage should be minimal. But if it helps you feel better, they’re still technically better than CFLs for the above reasons…they just have a lot of room to grow.

    Regarding lava lamps and easybake ovens: Comventional tungsten incandescents are still legal to produce and sell for specialized applications. Your groovy muffins should be safe. ;)

  24. says

    Neonsequiter (1):

    Really? I’ve been using the same CFLs for years. If you use a dimmer switch, that might explain it; I think switching to LEDs might help there.

  25. says

    The Wayback Machine:
    Lancifer, January 1, 1996: “If unleaded gas is so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy it rather than being forced to buy it?”

  26. D. C. Sessions says

    One of my leading peeves is that in spite of the fact that LEDs are capable of linear control (“dimming”) from zero to 100% — and even color variation — we’re constraining them into emulating Edison’s 19th century filament bulbs. Which is why they don’t do well with dimmers.

    What really gripes me is that in a few years I’ll be building a new energy-efficient house, and I won’t have any real alternative to wiring it with the same standards that were retrofitted to the 1880s adobe I have now when electricity first became available in the area. Which is major headdesk material.

  27. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Lancifer, January 1, 1996: “If unleaded gas is so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy it rather than being forced to buy it?”

    Well, HE had to suffer brain damage, why shouldn’t everyone else?!

  28. Sastra says

    dmcclean #11

    the LED ones … don’t have that infant morality problem even here in our engineering shop where we do all sorts of horrible things to the power.

    I have nothing useful to add to the technical discussion. I just wanted to point out how much I mentally enjoyed the idea of “infant morality problem(s)” in an engineering shop where they do all sorts of horrible things to the power. Scope for the imagination there.

    Infant morality is even worse than toddler morality. Check your minions.

  29. Lofty says

    Over the last year I’ve been swapping to LEDs as the CFLs were being cooked in the enclosed light fittings we have. The sad thing is the fittings were supposed to be specifically designed to work with CFLs. Mind you the CFLs were still lasting waaay longer than tungsten bulbs. I’ve been looking at LED lamps closely for a good few years and every year they seen to halve (approximately) in price and their brightness increase by a significant margin. The latest LEDs are almost twice as bright per watt than the CFLs they replace. Basically I’m using 7W or 10W LED bulbs instead of the 20W curlies.
    Another couple of years and I reckon CFLs will be consigned to the dustbin of history along with their dinosaur ancestors the filament lamp.

  30. Hatchetfish says

    “If they are so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy them rather than being forced to buy them?”

    If murder is so bad why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to not kill each other rather than being forced to not kill each other?
    If radium free medicine is so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy it rather than being forced to buy it?
    If non-mad cows are so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy them rather than being forced to buy them?

    Short answer: because some changes need to happen, regardless of what uninformed idiots think they know about the issues involved.

  31. colnago80 says

    Re Modusoperandi @ #29

    I have a flash for Sir Lancelot, fuel injection engines are engineered for unleaded gas. Use of leaded gas, if it were still available, would void the warranty as it would clog the intake ports.

  32. Lofty says

    colnago80

    … clog the intake ports

    It’s catalytic converters in the exhaust pipes that leaded gas destroys by melt down.

  33. says

    My thought on it is this: if you look around, you can get LED and CFL bulbs at substantial discounts, subsidized by electric utilities, which are usually (obviously) for-profit. I have to assume this works in their favor — my best guess is that the reduction in power usage takes the stress off of old and polluting power plants, cutting fuel and maintenance costs. I’d imagine there’s other benefits, but either way, it’s as worth it to the utilities to resell the bulbs at a loss as it is to consumers to buy them at any price.

  34. says

    If they are so great why can’t the American public be allowed to choose to buy them rather than being forced to buy them?

    Because the majority of people are stupid. Unfortunately, humans are like herding cats, and society has to step in.

    It’s like asking why we can’t just let people choose whether to obey the speed limits. Because we can’t entirely rely on humans to do the right thing. This isn’t a new revelation.

  35. says

    I’m tired of hearing about how long these “new” light bulbs are supposed to last. I keep installing them, and they keep dying after a few weeks/months, then they cost a fortune to replace. They’re a complete rip-off, and NO they are not saving me any money.

    hmm… I replaced the bulbs through our offices and all our bulbs at home long ago and I’ve been bowled over by how long the new bulbs last. Seriously. I was replacing light bulbs all the time and now I’m a bit surprised when one blows because it happens so infrequently. I have no question we’ve saved money on bulb replacement. Not sure about electric bills because I don’t track the bills very closely and after switching companies our bill immediately plummeted.

  36. colnago80 says

    Re Lofty @ #39

    That’s true and was the reason that the switch was made to unleaded gas. It should be noted that the use of fuel injected engines came sometime after the switch when microcomputers became available to monitor the fuel flow into the cylinders. It is my information that, even if catalytic converters were not present, leaded gas would eventually clog the input ports in the cylinders.

  37. Lofty says

    colnago80 @ 43, electronic fuel injection for leaded gas became available in 1968 on a Volkswagen 1600 TLE, Mercedes from around 1973 and in Australia at least could be found on new Ford and GM cars as late as 1985 after which unleaded was mandated here. None of these vehicles suffered from clogging of the intake ports from this reason. Worn out engines and broken oil seals on the other hand could clog intake ports but were not restricted to injected vehicles. One of the things that damages catalytic converters is oil contamination, so unleaded vehicles tend to have tighter oil control. But there are plenty of old leaded engines that managed well over 200 000 miles without need for decarboning of the valves.

  38. freemage says

    Obviously, this is a situation where anecdata is going to get tossed around, but my experience matches nonsequitor’s. I live in what is politely called a ‘vintage’ apartment building (read: old as fuck, because brick lasts forever). The wiring, while not faulty, is nowhere near what it would be in a newer building. This creates a small amount of variance in the electrical flow. I can’t see it–it’s not like the lights flicker. But CFLs were burning out monthly. Undoing that would require our landlord to pretty much rewire the entire building. We finally had to go back to incandescents. I’m hopeful the LEDs will be a bit sturdier.

  39. Erk12 says

    Oh, I guess I’ll add to the general chorus of good experiences with CFLs. Of the ones I’ve bought, I had only 2 or 3 out of 12 or so burn out in 10 years.

    The only bad experience: About 2 years ago my apartment building switched all the fixtures to the GU-24 pin-type to force people to use energy efficient bulbs (electricity is included in the rent). Wherever they bought them from, sold cheap crap because about half failed within a year.

  40. colnago80 says

    Re Erk12 @ #44

    Actually, the link refers to using an LED bulb on a 0 – 100% dimmer. Didn’t say anything about a 3 way lamp.

  41. Erk12 says

    He’s not exactly clear in the first post but it you read farther:

    From your description I get a feeling you put a single level [LED] bulb into a 3 level socket such as used by a 50/75/100 W bulb.

    Exactly!

    related to my #47:
    Also, the CFLs that I’ve had burn out were in the bathroom (a lot of power cycling). Still I bet a lot of people in older homes with wonky electricity will have freemage’s problem though.

  42. colnago80 says

    Re Lofty @ #45

    May have something to do with the design of the intake ports. The owner’s manual on my 1990 Honda Civic, which was the first fuel injected car I drove, stated that use of leaded gas would invalidate the warranty on the engine (of course, it would also invalidate the warranty on the catalytic converter). May also have something to do with the computer controlled engines which did not exist prior to about 1980 (these engines run on very lean mixtures).

  43. Lofty says

    One of the cool things you can do with LED bulbs is to get the low wattage 12 volt downlight ones and wire your own lighting system that allows you to have house lights during a power failure. Something as simple as a deep cycle truck sized battery and a good battery charger in the basement will run a bunch of these lights for many hours. Solar panels for charging too, if you like that sort of thing. Our house has a selection of these, including six 5 watters in the kitchen and a propane stove so house comfort continues happily through the worst storm outages. Low voltage PIR sensors can mean you can have automatic lights in critical hallways, doorways and bathrooms available 100% of the time. And of course this kind of stuff is ridiculously cheap on ebay, especially if you buy direct from China.

  44. scenario says

    I had a lot of problems with CFL bulbs when they first came out. Spent $20+ per bulb and if you just bumped the lamp when it was running for a while, the bulb would instantly die. I haven’t had that problem for a while. The local electric company was giving energy efficient bulbs away for free about 5 years ago and I’ve still got a few of them left waiting for a bulb to blow out.

    The only problem I have is that I have used old style bulbs in the past as a source of heat. When the temperature goes down to 10 below freezing a hundred watt bulb in an enclosed area can keep the pipes from freezing. Many of the local stores stop stocking cold weather stuff once it’s past the middle of the winter so an old fashion bulb was a quick cheap solution.

  45. Michael Heath says

    neonsequitur writes:

    I’m tired of hearing about how long these “new” light bulbs are supposed to last. I keep installing them, and they keep dying after a few weeks/months, then they cost a fortune to replace. They’re a complete rip-off, and NO they are not saving me any money.

    Someone’s making a fortune selling this defective crap, and now they’ve convinced our government that we should be forced to buy it. It’s not tyranny, it’s just (big) business as usual in America.

    As a residential developer and property mgr., I use CFLs in some the harshest weather in the U.S. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I save about 80% because they use far less watts for a given amount of lumens and last much longer than the halogens I was using on lamp-post lights.

    I’m now considering going to LED street lights for even more savings given the excellent performance our town is enjoying on its Main St. LEDs installed a couple of years ago.

    Perhaps your opinion is based on experiences either years ago or buying off-brand lamps.

  46. haitied says

    This is a worse theft of liberty since THEY banned lead paint. That stuff lasted for decades and the colors stayed for the same.

  47. D. C. Sessions says

    Yes, the term “infant mortality” is a bit amusing.

    The more so when you consider that it’s generally mentioned in the context of a “bathtub curve.”

  48. says

    “Sir Lancelot is an Ayn Rand devotee.”

    It’s inefficient to argue with Randroids (like me circa 1994). If you just leave them alone for a few years, they usually grow out of it.

  49. jameshanley says

    Since we’re all having so much–that is, since we’re all benefitting individually–why was it necesary to require it? Is the belief that people aren’t capable of making decisions that are in their own benefit? Businesses won’t be willing to reduce costs without a mandate?

    Or is a sign of my idiocy that I even ask such a question?

    (FTR, I use CFLs and am planning to transition to LEDs; I am not snarkily questioning the savings to individuaks and businesses.)

  50. says

    Um, Ed:

    One word, “Kemtralez”!

    Nobody believes us that the Kemtralez are for reelz but that’s a’cuz they don’t know how they rilly work.

    What happens, see, is that allathem jetliners and all military aircraft have been spewin’ their poison for years and the reason nothing much has happened is that the stuff’s not S’POSED to work until everybody’s been innocufied with the Kenyan usurper reptile cooties. And then after that’s done, they’ll activate the stuff, all at once, and we’ll be all, like, lizombieardz. Now, guess what they use to activate it? That’s right, LED lightbulbs!

    After that they’re gonna stop using AC power and go to DC like Edison (A great PATRIOT!!) wanted them to–. Guess who else was big on AC power? His elite killers had ‘lectricifous bolts on their collar tabs!

  51. says

    jameshanley “Since we’re all having so much–that is, since we’re all benefitting individually–why was it necesary to require it?”
    1. I don’t pay utilities.
    2. I do have to purchase and replace my own bulbs.

    Guess what I would do if I was cheap or an asshole (or a cheap asshole)?

  52. lancifer says

    I am not a Luddite and will happily change the lighting in my home to more efficient lighting when dimmable CFL’s and LED’s and the associated dimming switches are both reasonable and dependable.

    That doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with whether or not the freaking congress of the United States should be banning a safe, popular and effective product. Comparing incandescent light bulbs to leaded gasoline is idiotic.

    Of course all of you statist twits have a whole laundry list of things that the government should mandate. It comes as no surprise that light bulbs appear on the list.

  53. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    As far as saving us from the evil coal fired plants is concerned, you have been been duped by a group that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.

    A group more accurately and popularly known as scientists. And only in Winguttia is doing science known as “unscientific”, and of course, Orwell’s books. Hint Lancifer: he’s critical of those who do it.

    I didn’t know that Wingnuttiia thought scientists doing science was just like Jim Jones’ followers; hmmm – I’m skeptical most Winguttians are that stupid and delusional – not even Michelle Bachman and Louie Gohmert are this nuts. So I think I’ll put that down to psychological projection – again.

  54. Peter B says

    Power LEDs used in lighting applications produce both heat and light. The heat has to be dissipated or the LED junction temperature will get above 130ºC. Then irreversible bad things happen. Any well designed bulb will do well in environments not so hot as to acutely uncomfortable to humans. On the low end -40ºC and below is comfortable for LEDs but may cause problems for the internal power supply. (Capacitors)

    Several of my friends work for a LED lighting company. (lumenLED.net) They have bought several of each LED lighting product from Home Depot and Costco. Many of these bulbs convinced my friends that the companies producing them were in a cost driven race to the bottom. Many LED lighting products will continue to work if the outer globe comes off. Should that happen it’s not nice that on some bulbs exposed metal parts were directly connected to 110VAC.

    It costs ~$0.40 extra to make the bulb dimmable with standard dimmers. However that affects the input voltage range. A non dimmable LED “World Bulb” can easily work on 100-240V 50-60Hz.

  55. Michael Heath says

    James Hanley writes:

    Since we’re all having so much–that is, since we’re all benefitting individually–why was it necesary to require it? Is the belief that people aren’t capable of making decisions that are in their own benefit? Businesses won’t be willing to reduce costs without a mandate?
    Or is a sign of my idiocy that I even ask such a question?

    I think it’s an excellent question. Did you ever research the best arguments for and against?

    I either didn’t or don’t recall doing so. The only memorable argument I heard was by Sarah Palin and that of course had nothing to do with cogency. However, I was reading Andrew Sullivan back when this issue was debated where he’s really good at presenting for/against arguments at his blog. So perhaps I got enough information back then to be OK with it, went on to other controversies, and forgot why I was OK with it.

  56. Bearded One says

    I’ve had terrible luck with CFLs and I’m pretty sure they ended up costing me more money than what I’ve saved on electricity. Add to that the cost and problems associated with proper disposal CFLs were a mistake. LEDs are the way to go but they weren’t ready for prime time when this whole fiasco started. Frankly, they jumped the gun with the incandescent ban. Even today they should not be completely banned yet but perhaps simply taxed at a higher rate. They are the best choice in some cases simply because of the heat they generate. I laughed when northern states had to install heaters in their traffic lights because the new energy efficient ones didn’t generate enough heat to melt the snow in the winter.

  57. Randomfactor says

    When I moved into my current home, I replaced all the bulbs with CFL’s (except the appliance bulbs). Not only am I saving lots every month, but due to rebates, etc the bulbs only cost me $1 each…and most of them are still going 5 years later.

  58. jameshanley says

    @Modus,
    I get your incentive. But isn’t that really a phase-in issue? As the more cost-effective bulbs become more in demand their price will drop and demand will increase further, leaving incandescents as, at best, a small njche in the market. Their price may even rise as manufacturers and stores find it costly to supply a small-niche product. Unless a large part of the market is in your situation, it doesn’t appear to be a major problem.

    @Michael,
    “I remember hearing something that persuaded me once upon a time, but I can’t remember what,” is not much of an answer. Yes, I’m familiar with the issue. But I haven’t heard a good argument for why, say, businesses won’t do what’s in their own best interest. Your own example, presented above, supports the argument that they will. Why didn’t you need to be mandated toward cost-savings? Why would others be different from you?

    Others: Using un-leaded gas didn’t create individual cost-savings; no individual or firm would have unilaterally gained by switching. So there’s a different incentive sructure at play there that makes it a poor comparison. In game theoretic terms, switching to unleaded gas was a classic prisoner’s dilemma. Switching away from incandescents, because a unilateral change is rewarding, rather than harmful, is not a prisoner’s dilemma. Unlike switching to unleaded gas it seems to be a nearly ideal case for a market solution (not quite ideal, but a very good case).

  59. jameshanley says

    Colnago80 wrote;
    Sir Lancelot is an Ayn Rand devotee.

    Do you have any evidence for this? I’ve undoubtedly spent more time face to face with Lance than anyone here, and I don’t remember him ever talking about Rand. We’ve camped together and spent time together working on each other’s houses, and gone through quite a few beers. But I don’t remember discussing Rand (whom I dislike, so I’d probably remembet if he was praising her).

    So, evidence? Or is just a baseless character attack?

  60. colnago80 says

    Re Bearded One @ #64

    I haven’t had to do this yet but it is my understanding that Home Depot will recycle CFLs,.

  61. colnago80 says

    Re jameshanley @ #67

    Sir Lancelot’s attitude toward global warming is much like one would expert from Ayn Rand. I recall an interview with her in which she was opposed to pollution controls, stating that smoke coming out of factory chimneys was a sigh of prosperity. Your fellow Michigander, Michael Heath, has, on this blog called Sir Lancelot a liar, a sentiment with which I am complete agreement.

  62. colnago80 says

    Re James Henley @ #66

    The issue of unleaded gasoline is a an issue that arises because of catalytic converters, which, contrary to popular belief, are not, repeat not required. What is required is that automobile manufacturers must meet certain emission standards as measured by the EPA and the only way they have been able to accomplish this is by the use of catalytic converters which remove CO and HC emissions. Leaded gas will burn up the converter in short order, rendering them inoperative. The issue, then, from a libertarian perspective is, does the government have any business applying emissions standards to motor vehicles? That’s the issue, not catalytic converters. This was decided in the affirmative some 40+ years ago during the Nixon administration.

  63. Michael Heath says

    James Hanley writes:

    “I remember hearing something that persuaded me once upon a time, but I can’t remember what,” is not much of an answer. Yes, I’m familiar with the issue. But I haven’t heard a good argument for why, say, businesses won’t do what’s in their own best interest. Your own example, presented above, supports the argument that they will. Why didn’t you need to be mandated toward cost-savings? Why would others be different from you?

    Again, I don’t recall the arguments when this was being debated in the mid-2000s. You’re criticizing me for an argument I never made, instead I asked for yours which you also didn’t provide.

    Here’s one reason for supporting a mandate now though I’m confident it wasn’t one advanced by Republicans when they passed this law. My motivation for this argument is due to a large group of Americans, devotedly represented by congressional Republicans, who now effectively seek to harm the country. Where they’re at least partly motivated by wanting to spite their political opponents. On climate change matters, the leaders of this group have no coherent or even honest arguments for their actions that rebut my point, only easily discredited arguments that also point us to other motivations. So we have to consider forcing people to behave on some matters to better protect all of us. That sucks, but sometimes it’s necessary. Rather than castigating the crusaders, I’ll spend my time vilifying the parties acting so irresponsible.

    U.S. conservatives and powerful libertarians have become so nihilistic they actively promote policies experts are confident will harm the national interest; e.g., contractionary fiscal and monetary policies at the start of the down-turn of the business cycle, not raising the debt limit, threatening the country with a government shutdown in order to advance policies that are not nearly as important as the impact of government shutdowns. (Which in the real estate industry personally and directly costs me money, along with my seller-clients – twice this year alone.)

    This nihilism exists in spite of the threat of climate change as reported by science and the cost/benefit analysis of climate change mitigation. We see an entire political party obstructing any serious mitigation of the threat as its communicated by scientists. Instead they lie about the state of the science and seek to misinform the public. Such obstructionism is both idiotic and nuts even if you’re skeptical regarding what science has to say on the matter. Even a remedial cost/benefit analysis will validate the insanity of avoiding or denying the threat.

    With freedom comes responsibility. When we see irresponsible actions increasing in a certain area causing harm to some, it’s human nature for responsible individuals to consider and advocate restricting or prohibiting the rights of the irresponsible to better protect the far superior rights of the many and/or responsible. E.g., we’d have no gun control debates if we didn’t have so many victims of gun violence. On this subject we’d have no debates on regulating the migration to more cost efficient products if we had only rational actors who want to participate in reducing the threat of climate change. Instead we have a group that controls an entire political party seeking to avoid and deny this very threat. Sure there’s going to be a cost when such lunacy abounds.

    We should be debating how to best reduce the threat of climate change, with each side pushing the other to improve its policy arguments so we achieve a more optimal set of policies. Instead one side’s seeking ways to do so, imperfectly certainly, while the other side stomps up and down screaming that scientists are not scientists but “alarmists” and now we learn, those scientists are just like Jim Jones’ followers.

    The argument I present here doesn’t mean I actually support this particular requirement. Again, I don’t recall the arguments that led to this law and I don’t care enough to research why we shouldn’t do this. I’m far more concerned about the threat we face where I’m for far more radical actions than this relatively trivial piece of policy. E.g., I advocate we more aggressively transfer the external costs of climate change from current and future taxpayers by applying those costs to the supply chains who produce this threat, rather than subsidize them as we do now. That’s in order to have those producers and consumers fund the costs of mitigating the threat, reduce the supply of such products and their consumption, and better enable less onerous energy sources to better compete against these polluting subsidized sectors.

  64. Nathair says

    Of course all of you statist twits have a whole laundry list of things that the government should mandate.

    Proudly.

  65. D. C. Sessions says

    I haven’t had to do this yet but it is my understanding that Home Depot will recycle CFLs,.

    Any place that sells them is required to recycle them as well. And pretty near every store (including supermarkets) sells them now.

  66. Michael Heath says

    colnago80 writes:

    Your fellow Michigander, Michael Heath, has, on this blog called Sir Lancelot a liar, a sentiment with which I am complete agreement.

    Your record of misrepresenting others is atrocious. Yes, lancifer has been continually exposed as a liar on topics that differentiate libertarians from liberals. Regretfully, many of those threads are no longer unless someone knows how they can take my bookmarks and find archived links (I bookmarked those links, but ScienceBlogs no longer publishes the comment threads). But that has nothing to do with your own record of continually misrepresenting others.

    FWIW I don’t recall lancifer ever bringing up Ayn Rand. I do recall him attempting to rebut modern economic theory regarding negative externalities by claiming we should instead rely on one of the philosophers Glen Beck loves to cite, I forgot his name (Hayek?). Ironically I looked up the topic in the book lancifer cited and the author refuted lancifer’s point. However and even more ironically, the author did so weakly (one paragraph). I assume because the author wasn’t in favor government regulation whereas you kind of need it to reduce externalities. So the existence of externalities being one of those inconvenient facts of life, this author acknowledged it and quickly moved on, I assume hoping the topic would be avoided altogether. Which is exactly what one of his sheeple precisely did; denying there were externalities to our consumption of cheap (subsidized) sugar, again contra to what science has to say on the matter.

  67. jameshanley says

    Colgnac,
    You missed my point on unleaded gasolines. I wasn’t talking about the mechanisms of leaded v. unleaded. I was just pointing out that, in contrast to incandescents v. CFLs/LEDs, there was mo direct individual cost savings to incentivise a person to shift to unleaded, so it’s not a good comparison to the present case insofar as we’re answering the question of whether people will shift without a mandate. In other words, I assume people are mostly greedy and self-seeking: that would not lead them to shift from leaded to unleaded, but should cause them to shift from incandescents to CFLs/LEDs.

    Re: Lance and Rand. You accuse Lance of being a liar, which presumably you see as a bad thing. Yet you make a false and unsupported claim about him being a Rand devotee. It seems, then, that you also are kess than honest, and gave little room to complain about any other person’s dishonesty.

  68. jameshanley says

    Michael Heath,

    I am asking why people, average Americans like you and me, along with businesses, won’t shift away from incandescents if their are cost savings in doing do.

    You don’t answer that, but give me your boilerplate screed about Republicans and global warming. Let me stipulate, for the sake of argument, that I am in full agreement that Republucans are wicked and climate change is a great danger to humanity. No argument against it.

    It doesn’t even begin to address my question, which is why we think people won’t pursue their own self-interest by shifting away from icandescents to save money; why we think they have to be mandated to pursue their own interest.

  69. Nathair says

    It doesn’t even begin to address my question, which is why we think people won’t pursue their own self-interest by shifting away from icandescents to save money; why we think they have to be mandated to pursue their own interest.

    It’s a very popular idea, this notion that people are well informed, always act rationally and always act in their own self interest but popularity doesn’t make it any less wrong.

  70. Michael Heath says

    jameshanley writes:

    I am asking why people, average Americans like you and me, along with businesses, won’t shift away from incandescents if their are cost savings in doing do.
    I am asking why people, average Americans like you and me, along with businesses, won’t shift away from incandescents if their are cost savings in doing do.
    You don’t answer that, but give me your boilerplate screed about Republicans and global warming.

    Well I did answer that, but I’ll be clearer and provide another example.

    The people I know personally that have commented on why they’re sticking with incandescents is because they hate the uppity black president. They’re instead doing what Sarah Palin advised to them to do (they’re devotees of hers). I already alluded to her earlier. It’s ironic that they’re rebelling against a GOP led initiative but the Xmas conversation I heard never mentioned the GOP; instead they attributed it to President Obama who was always derided at every mention of his name. I never spoke-up on this topic. Is this irrational behavior? Yes obviously, but that is the current state of conservatism and libertarianism which makes my “boilerplate” directly relevant, i.e. that they’re not acting rationally so this prohibition is validated given their behavior.

    Again, I find this a trivial topic with far more important issues to tackle. I generally prefer more market-based initiatives. In this case that would be adding a carbon tax to lamps that reflect their negative external costs and provide a superior market signal where prices of all lamps better represent their actual total cost. Perhaps it’s more economically feasible to do it the way the GOP has us doing it, which I’m OK with as well since I do think incandescents have to go for the most part since they provide almost no advantages and lots of disadvantages.

    I don’t think this threatens my freedom; this issue has revealed a lot of idiocy, hatred, demagoguery, and delusional thinking. E.g, scientists are just like Jim Jones’ followers. My, my.

  71. grasshopper says

    Dunc said

    Then you have a problem with your electrical supply or your wiring. You might want to get that checked out.

    Back when I was still working as an electrical contractor I frequently came across customers who believed the problem was with their wiring, yet the “problem” only ever affected the light globes, and never the most sensitive electronic devices in the house.

    And, of course, I solved all other lighting problems by a process of illumination.

  72. grasshopper says

    Oops .. forgot to say that my experience was that the quality of the light globe that was the salient thing.

  73. jameshanley says

    @Michael Heath,

    The people I know personally that have commented on why they’re sticking with incandescents is because they hate the uppity black president. They’re instead doing what Sarah Palin advised to them to do…the Xmas conversation I heard

    Do you have any evidence that any significant number of people would do this over any significant period of time despite the personal cost to themselves, or do you just have anecdotes about ‘some people say they’re gonna’? Because I have to say that “some people say they’re gonna do X” doesn’t seem like a sound basis for public policy.

    Does anyone have a really good answer to my question? I get why everyone approves the result, and I’m not arguing against that. But I’m wondering why everyone here thinks the mandate was necessary, when they simultaneously think people directly gain by switching from incandescents, and I’m not getting very good answers to that question.

  74. scenario says

    The electric grid in some parts of the U.S. is old and near carrying capacity. Electric companies will have to spend billions to upgrade the system. If we can cut down consumption, these billions would be spread out over 10 or 20 years instead of 5 or 10. Getting rid of inefficient light bulbs was an easy way to cut down energy usage. Most people wouldn’t complain that much because the new bulbs actually saved them money.

    The problem with relying on the market to fix the problem is the time delay, Once the system is over capacity and the rolling blackouts started happening, it would take 5 years to fix the problem at a considerably greater cost. Asking people really nicely to do what is best for them doesn’t work. Just look at politics in america today to see a lot of examples.

  75. chilidog99 says

    I have three fixtures that use the small base, round bulb incandescents with the clear glass. two I don’t mind replacing if I have to, but the third is a nice, lucite chandelier. I have to figure out a way to rewire it.

  76. Nathair says

    But I’m wondering why everyone here thinks the mandate was necessary, when they simultaneously think people directly gain by switching from incandescents, and I’m not getting very good answers to that question.

    Actually, you are getting good answers. You just choose to demand proof that people absolutely would have resisted the switch. You are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that people do stupid, contrary things for stupid reasons, that people resist change just because it is change, that people seriously harm themselves in the long term for trivial short term reasons or, as I suspect is the case with you, that ideology triumphs over reason.

    People still smoke, does anything else need to be said about our rational decision making ability?

  77. jameshanley says

    Scenario,

    That seems to rely on assumptions I’m not confident about. Again, we’re talking about people saving themselves money. I’m not hearing an argument about why people won’t save their own money in sufficient numbers.

    I mean, people are either motivated by doing what’s right or they’re motivated by greed, right? So won’t those who aren’t motivated by it just being the right thing to do be motivated by their own greed?

    But I don’t want to sound too harsh here. Following your line of argument, if the need to upgrade is indeed on a short time line, and the marginal savings to individual fairly small, or the simple replacement time (assuming each burnt out incadescent gets replaced by a CFL) too long, then there could be justification for a mandate. As I noted, I’m not confident about the assumptions, but granting them there’s a real logic to the argument, and I don’t want my doubts to obscure my recognition of that.

  78. Nathair says

    people are either motivated by doing what’s right or they’re motivated by greed, right?

    No, not right. Those are merely two of a myriad of motivations that influence people’s actions. Even as far as those two cases go you are incorrectly assuming that people are all perfectly informed and agree on “what’s right”.

  79. jameshanley says

    @Chilidog,
    Would these meet your needs?

    @nathair,
    I disagree. I don’t doubt that the answers sound good to you given what I assume to be your predispositions. My predispositions come from being a policy studies guy. This policy fits well in the “that’s how policy gets made” literature, but not so well in the “that’s what type of policy is needed in which case” literature. As to smoking, we’re often talking about addiction there.* I don’t think anyone’s got a physical addiction to CFLs.
    __________________________________________
    * To be precise, smoking addiction is overwhelmingly associated with beginning smoking in one’s adolescence, when the brain is much more susceptible. Those who first start smoking in their post-adolescent years are unlikely to become addicted, and so less likely to become regular smokers. We dramatically reduced teen smoking by raising taxes that priced many teens out of the market, and the result has been a dramatic decline in smoking frequency in America (so dramatic that it forced American tobacco companies to seek out markets in developing countries, sigh). For those who are not addicted, and are just occasional smokers (like me–had a couple cigarettes on New Year’s Eve, the first in several months), the enjoyment associated with smoking makes it difficult to argue that it’s irrational (since utility is subjective; we can’t really tell another person what their net utility is, even if we could tell them what the precise risk was).

  80. colnago80 says

    Re James Hanley @ #75

    I may be misinformed about this but it is my understanding that the government has not said that incandescents can’t be manufactured and sold. What the government has said is that light bulbs must meet certain energy efficiency standards and incandescents as currently manufactured don’t meet them. Just as automobiles without catalytic converters can’t meet emission standards, and thus are required to use unleaded gasoline. AFAIK, it’s the same kind of requirement.

    The argument relative to cost savings is, IMHO, a red herring. The lifetime costs of CFLs and LEDs is indeed less then the lifetime costs of incandescents but how many consumers really consider lifetime costs? I would suspect only a small minority. Consumers are not alone in this regard. When the US government calls for bids on a highway project for instance, it doesn’t consider the lifetime costs when writing the specification, unlike in, say Germany. That’s why highways last longer in Germany then they do in the US.

    Re Michael Heath @ #74

    Ole Sir Lancelot may be referring to Ludwig von Mises, who was one of the leading lights of the Austrian School of economics. His economic ideas appear to reflect this particular school., which may be a more accurate description then the Ayn Rand school, whatever the fuck that is.

    By the way, in what way, shape, form, or regard have I misrepresented your representation of Sir Lancelot. Is it not a fact that you have referred to him as a liar? It may be that he actually believes the crap that he writes on the subject of climate change, in which case he’s not a liar but merely deluded.

  81. lancifer says

    I see the usual suspects are misrepresenting my views and/or outright lying about them.

    I am not, nor have I ever been a follower of Ayn Rand.

    Also, I am amused to see Michael Heath’s little delusional vignettes, where in he triumphally recounts (without quotes or links of course) some straw man version of a previous discussion we had months or even years ago.

    But below is an example of his willingness to distort (without quotation of course) something I had said only a few posts above.

    E.g, scientists are just like Jim Jones’ followers.

    Show me where I said that Mr. Heath.

    Here is what I actually said

    …you have been been duped by a group (the NRDC) that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.

    The comment clearly referenced the irrationality of members of the environmental activist nut jobs at the NRDC not “scientists”.

    Of course you see Koch brother bogey men behind every opinion on climate change that doesn’t rigidly conform with your extreme and irrationally alarmist opinions.

  82. colnago80 says

    Re James Hanley

    I suggest that you read Sir Lancelot’s comments on this thread relative to climate change. It would appear that your good buddy is beginning to become quite deranged on the subject, resorting to character assassination rather then rational argument.

  83. jameshanley says

    @nathair,
    you are incorrectly assuming that people are all perfectly informed and agree on “what’s right”.

    No, but I think the misunderstanding is my fault for not being clear. I mean those who think switching to CFLs/LEDs is the right thing to do will be motivated to do so by that (assuming it’s within their price range). Those who don’t have the “it’s the right thing to do” feelings about it should still be motivated by the opportunity to save money.

    The argument here seems to be that they’re more motivated by “I’ll show those tree hugging environmental hippies and that negro usurper Kenyan fascist commie Muslim atheist so-called president” than by saving money. I can see that in the short run, and I can certainly see it as cheap talk. I have a harder time believing there’s a large number of people out there who are really dedicated to wasting money on what is mostly a private show of defiance. That is, I think those people are mostly hyperbole and bluster, and at the end of they day they’ll say, “geez, I’d sure like to save a few bucks.”

    Put another way, I think the perceptions of CFLs as unreliable and giving bad light are a stronger factor in people’s resistance, and their political blathering primarily a justification. And those are legitimate reasons to the extent they’re true. Persuade people they’re not true and I think the political justifications will be tossed away like last night’s left over fish fry.

    Honestly, I do think the backers of CFLs made a tactical error early on by emphasizing the environmental benefits of switching away from incandescents. Not that what they said was inaccurate, but they stoked unnecessary opposition. Correctly or incorrectly, many on the right see “environmentally friendly” products as meaning “lower in quality, so I have to suffer to prevent an environmental crisis I don’t even believe in.” Once that’s in their head about a particular product, it’s damned hard to get them to adjust their views. If they had been pitched primarily as money savers from the start (and they were, but I mean overwhelmingly that, with far less environmental benefit overlay), the sell now would be easier.

    And I understand why people with environmental concerns pitch things that way. Those values are important to them, and asking them to downplay them is a hard thing to do, especially when a big part of their goal is to shift the population toward embracing those values. But it’s a sales-killer with that particular demographic, and hate ‘em or not, they’re part of the population and they vote and make purchases, so they need to be sold. And that works best when they’re sold on the terms that meet their own values.

    That kind of went off into a soapbox speech. Sorry. That wasn’t all directed at you specifically nathair; just a general screed to the world.

  84. Nathair says

    As to smoking, we’re often talking about addiction there.* I don’t think anyone’s got a physical addiction to CFLs.

    Nonsense. People are not addicted to smoking before they even begin to smoke. Neither is addiction some kind of magical trump that conquers all. People quit smoking. Many others do not. “It’s hard to quit” is, as I mentioned above, one of those trivial short term reasons for which people do themselves long term harm. (See also: drinking and driving, fast food and morbid obesity, anti-vaxxers, raw milk consumption, poor people voting republican, etc.)

    Perhaps “policy studies guy” should strive to be bit more of a “basic psychology of actual people guy”

  85. jameshanley says

    colognac,

    Lance’s views on climate change have nothing to do with your dishonest claim that he is a follower of Ayn Rand. You can’t escape your own dishonesty by moving the goalposts.

  86. Nathair says

    I mean those who think switching to CFLs/LEDs is the right thing to do will be motivated to do so by that (assuming it’s within their price range). Those who don’t have the “it’s the right thing to do” feelings about it should still be motivated by the opportunity to save money.

    Yes, I understood. No, that’s still wrong for the reasons already given. People are complex. People are often irrational. People just do not approach each and every decision in a perfectly informed, vulcan logical, completely isolated vacuum.

    The “rational consumer” is a complete myth.

  87. freemage says

    jameshanley: The problem isn’t so much that people aren’t willing to save money (oh, there’s probably some of Michael Heath’s concern who are willing to cut off their nose to spite their own face, but I’m not going to insist they’re statistically significant). The problem is that a lot of people absolutely refuse to believe that CFLs WILL save them money. They will ignore facts, science and logic, and insist, largely based on half-remembered “friend of a friend” stories that there’s no savings at all, and in fact, they’re worse than “regular” bulbs overall.

    In addition, there’s a class of Americans (I live at the border of this class, myself), who often can’t afford $50 up front for a bulb, even if, in the long run, the expense is justified. (I recommend reading the Discworld novels, specifically the ones featuring Sam Vimes; he has a wonderful discussion about how rich people can afford stuff that will get old, like boots, because they can afford the sturdy stuff that pays off in the long run. Same principle, here.)

    Furthermore, the manufacturers have no particular desire to change this impression. Making longer-lasting bulbs means, ultimately, getting slower turnover of product, while at the same time having to pay to upgrade and modify production lines. So you have resistance to removing the cheap-and-easy product from the market.

    The effect of the mandate was to hold the manufacturer’s feet to the fire–to force them to bring to market the bulbs that meet the new standards, or to get out of the business entirely. It also forces something of a one-time shock to the market that ultimately will get hammered out due to the aforementioned long-term savings.

  88. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #91

    As far as I can see, your complaint as to Heath’s alleged misrepresentation of your comment relative to Jim Jones is a distinction without a difference. Your comments on this threat reflect what appears to be growing irrationality on your part on the subject. By the way, the current thinking in the climate community is that, if the increase in greenhouse gasses is not halted, average worldwide temperatures will rise by some 4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Of course, none of us will be around then. But, of course, Sir Lancelot, who has no publications in the peer reviewed literature on the subject of climate change, knows better then those who do.

  89. colnago80 says

    Re James Hanley @ #95

    OK, I misstated Sir Lancelot on the subject of Ayn Rand. I apologize for that misstatement. Mia culpa. Happy now.

  90. jameshanley says

    Nonsense. People are not addicted to smoking before they even begin to smoke

    You may have missed the part where I said adolescents are the ones who are likely to get addicted. Adolescent brains are not fully developed yet. Not only are they more susceptible to nicotine addiction, they lack the impulse control of adults. Rationality is something we attribute to adults, but only in varying degrees–increasing as they grow up–to children.

    (See also: drinking and driving,
    Well, the drinking comes first, so I think it’s clear people aren’t in a condition of impaired rationality when they make that decision, rather than being irrational people.

    fast food and morbid obesity,
    Funny, I thought liberal anti-fast food people were arguing that certain types of fatty foods are addictive.

    anti-vaxxers,
    Don’t confuse stupidity with irrationality; they’re analytically different categories. At least for us policy types.

    raw milk consumption,
    I know far too little about that to comment at all.

    poor people voting republican, etc.)
    I’m not a fan of Republicans, at least not of the current variety, but this one really grates on me. There are values to politics beyond monetary values. Heck, you’d probably applaud a billionaire voting for Democrats who’d raise taxes on him to do good things with the money. You’d appreciate the fact that he’d voted on values other than monetary ones. But for some reason the poor are supposed to make money their dominant political value? I can’t buy that. If a person’s primary values are being pro-life, anti gay rights, pro-gun, pro American hegemony, pro prayer in school, etc., and somewhere down below that are economic and welfare policies, it’s not at all irrational for them to vote Republican.

    And value preference orderings are outside the realm of rationality. Rationality is about how we act given a particular preference order. At least that’s how we policy guys apply the term.

  91. jameshanley says

    colognac,

    I do appreciate it. I’ve met (virtually, that is) too many people on the intertoobz who wouldn’t do so. It’s cool that you did.

  92. scenario says

    jameshanley @ 85

    I mean, people are either motivated by doing what’s right or they’re motivated by greed, right? So won’t those who aren’t motivated by it just being the right thing to do be motivated by their own greed?

    People frequently don’t do what is in there best interest because they are uniformed, or ideologically against it or can’t afford it or just lazy.

    I also thought that it was a way politicians could look like they were doing something to help the environment and big business without seriously pissing anyone off.

  93. jameshanley says

    @freemage,

    I think there may be something to what you say. If I may, I’d link your argument back to my point about how the issue was initially marketed badly, inadvertently helping to build the grounds for that intellectual resistance.

  94. jameshanley says

    Can I ask a general question of the old timers here?

    Are there still frequent discussions of issues by people coming from different sides of the ideological spectrum here, or has the place mostly solidified into a liberal forum where all the arguments are just nibbling around within a liberal framework?

    It appears to be the latter to me; that is, it appears to have changed a lot from the old Scienceblogs days. But I’m not sure if that’s really the case or if my perspective is shaped by the blog I now frequent most often, which has an ideologically diverse set of posters and commenters.

    (I do know that in the old days there were certainly bloggers who hated my libertarianness–hello Democommie and Raging Bee–but I never felt that libertarians were generally unwelcome to even participate, whereas now I do feel really really unwelcome, not just by a few, but in general. And I have to say, although my blog is written from a libertarian perspective, most, I think, of my–small handful–of readers are actually liberal, and the blog I frequent–Ordinary Times–really benefits from having liberals libertarians and conservatives (although they’re not very well represented) talking seriously to one another. I fear something valuable has been lost here by an ideological narrowing, but again, maybe I’m wrong that such a narrowing has occurred.)

  95. Nathair says

    Rationality is something we attribute to adults, but only in varying degrees–increasing as they grow up–to children.

    I will say it again, perhaps this time you will read it: Addiction is not some kind of magical trump that conquers all. People quit smoking. Addicted people quit smoking. Many others do not. “It’s hard to quit” is just one of those trivial short term reasons for which people do themselves long term harm.

    Well, the drinking comes first, so I think it’s clear people aren’t in a condition of impaired rationality when they make that decision, rather than being irrational people.

    Intoxication is no more magical than addiction. Many people make alternate arrangements before they begin to drink. Many other people call a taxi despite being drunk. Yet other people do neither. Clearly it is not as black and white as you suggest.

    Funny, I thought liberal anti-fast food people were arguing that certain types of fatty foods are addictive.

    And again, addiction is not magic.

    Don’t confuse stupidity with irrationality

    Once again you are being far too simplistic and in this case just making unsupported assertions. Opposition to vaccines is a complicated issue, too complicated to get into in detail here but in many cases it hinges on ignorance, misinformation and some very common cognitive biases surrounding risk assessment and action versus inaction. These kinds of cognitive biases are another large part of why your simplistic model of rational consumers if so deeply flawed.

  96. lorn says

    As an electrician I deal with this issue quite often.

    Hint #1: CFLs and dimmers – Read the package if the package tells you not to use the bulb, lamp in electrician speak, then it can be safely assumed that there will be an issue if you use it on a dimmed fixture. This isn’t some deep dark secret. It is clearly laid out on the package, and often again in fine print on the lamp.

    Seven or eight years ago to have a dimmable CFL you needed a special dimmable lamp, bulb, and a special CFL rated dimmer.

    This has changed. If you want a dimming lamp now you simply need the special dimmable CFL lamp. The lamps are clearly marked as dimmable and are seldom more than a few dollars more. Last ones I bought were about 2$ more. These units work well with standard dimmers.

    Hint #2: Lamp technology is a moving target. The reliability, color rendition, time to full-light in the cold have all improved. You can often find the less advanced units in the deep discount stores.The bad news: If you use the first generation CFL lamps made by off brand manufacturers you will always have sufficient evidence to conclude that the technology is not ready for prime time. The good news: Prices are going down and performance is going up. If you buy major brand names and make sure the lamps have the Energy Star logo, meaning they meet industry specifications, you get a good product.

    Hint #3: if the socket is defective whatever is screwed into it is doomed. If the tab in the center is mashed down or burned, or the sleeve is galled, or connections loose or burned you need to replace the socket.

    Hint #4: There are places where CFL lamps are not the best technology. CFLs, like other fluorescent lamps, work by throwing an arc the length of the lamp. Newer lamps work pretty well at low temperatures but some still struggle to come up to full power in a reasonable amount of time below 0F. Deep freezers and porch lights that stay that low for days are not the best place for the CFL technology. Also locations where the lamps are turned off and on a lot can cause premature failure. They have improved on this count also but it remains an inherent weakness of the technology. The majority of the wear on the unit is starting.

    Historic note: When electricity was cheap major department stores would often run their fluorescent lighting 24/7. This meant the lamps lasted longer and lowered maintenance, replacement, costs. For years I drove by my local Woolworths late at night and their lights were all still on. That changed in the late 70s when electricity was no longer almost free.

    The good news is that both those problems, cold weather ignition and performance and wear caused by start cycles, are avoided by another technology. LEDs don’t care a whit as to how cold it is and how often you turn them on and off. They reliably start and produce full light well below zero and switching doesn’t wear them out. Costs for LEDs have gone down and both light output and color rendering have vastly improved. To avoid lemons buy from major brand names and look for that blue Energy Star logo.

    If a CFL lamp breaks there is a very small amount of mercury released. Carefully pick up the glass. Use a damp paper towel to pick up any powder of glass shards. Place pieces in a paper or plastic bag. Discard with normal trash. Wash your hands, particularly before eating or smoking.

    Do not vacuum up broken lamps as this can spread mercury and phosphors.

  97. jameshanley says

    Nathair,

    Well, you’re free to disagree, but you’re quite wrong to say I’m being simplistic. Simplistic is your assertion that addiction doesn’t matter because some people manage to break it. Non-simplistic is to recognize that addiction matters because it mostly happens in the pre-fully rational stage of life and because not everyone can break addiction with equal ease.

    It appears to me that you are more eager to condemn people for bad behavior than to understand what’s really making them tick. And ironically, you’re the one who demanded more “basic psychology.” ;)

  98. lancifer says

    lorn,

    I very much appreciate your “hints”. As I stated above, I have no ideological reason to use incandescent bulbs.

    The last time I checked, admittedly several moths ago, there were no dimmible CFL’s available at either Lowe’s or Menard/s and the expensive dimmable LED’s required expensive LED compatible dimmer switches.

    I will investigate dimmable CFL’s and may even be motivated to leave my stash of 60W and 100W bulbs in the attic.

  99. Nathair says

    Simplistic is your assertion that addiction doesn’t matter because some people manage to break it.

    I did not say that. I said, repeatedly, that “It’s hard to quit” is just one of those trivial short term reasons for which people do themselves long term harm.

    It appears to me that you are more eager to condemn people for bad behavior than to understand what’s really making them tick.

    I am not condemning anyone, neither am I talking about “bad” behavior. I am pointing out that people do not act as rationally as your glib “good or greed” model would indicate. People are irrational, they act against their own interests, they are often poorly informed or misinformed, they deny reality, they are rife with cognitive biases.

  100. Rick Pikul says

    @lancifer 108:

    I just took a minute to check and I can get dimmible LED bulbs for $10 each, purchased singly[1]. Dimmer switches that I am certain will work with them, (i.e. they are LED rated), were in the $20-25 range, (dimmers in general bottomed out at $8 for a bare dial that had many quality complaints).

    [1] Said bulbs come with a five year guarantee, (from date of manufacture, so you don’t need to save the receipt).

  101. Ichthyic says

    Are there still frequent discussions of issues by people coming from different sides of the ideological spectrum here, or has the place mostly solidified into a liberal forum where all the arguments are just nibbling around within a liberal framework?

    this happens nearly everywhere.

    it’s because, well…

    reality has a well known liberal bias.

  102. Ichthyic says

    This is a worse theft of liberty since THEY banned lead paint. That stuff lasted for decades and the colors stayed for the same.

    …and the paint chips tasted way better too!

  103. Ichthyic says

    But for some reason the poor are supposed to make money their dominant political value? I can’t buy that

    this is an absolutely pathetic attempt at false equivalence.

    it’s not because you’re a libertarian that you aren’t welcome here.

    it’s because you’re a hack.

  104. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    this happens nearly everywhere.

    it’s because, well…

    reality has a well known liberal bias.

    To be fair, the Overton Window has been dragged so far to the Right that some of what now counts as “liberal” used to be crazy right-wing…

  105. Jordan Genso says

    @jameshanley:

    Are there still frequent discussions of issues by people coming from different sides of the ideological spectrum here, or has the place mostly solidified into a liberal forum where all the arguments are just nibbling around within a liberal framework?

    I think your observation is somewhat accurate, in that most of the commenters here are liberal. But I would attribute that to the libertarians (and conservatives, if there were really ever any) no longer posting. Rarely does a thread turn into the type of discussion this one has, since there aren’t enough people who take the opposing view. And that is a shame, because I always enjoy reading the longer discussions on forums like this one, where (as a general rule) the commenters are making rational arguments (or at least attempting to do so).

    but I never felt that libertarians were generally unwelcome to even participate, whereas now I do feel really really unwelcome, not just by a few, but in general

    Then that is disappointing. I know I can’t speak for others, but I am very glad you’ve posted the comments here that you have, even though I very much disagree with your overall point.

    As others have pointed out, I think your position incorrectly assumes that individuals always act rationally (well, you accept that children don’t, but adults do since they are mature). That if presented with two products, they will choose the one that makes the most financial sense. But that ignores the intangible, imaginary (and irrational) value that people often assign to products. When the only difference between the store-brand version and national-brand version of a product is the label, and the store-brand is cheaper, there shouldn’t be any rational reason for people to choose the more expensive version, but they do all the time.

    When it comes to light bulbs, I think that there are many individuals who put value in the comfort of familiarity. It doesn’t matter if an incandescent bulb costs them more in the long run, they may think that cost is worth it since it means they don’t have to learn to get accustomed to a new type of bulb. They may think that the other bulbs give off light that results in migraines, or they don’t make the room look as pleasant, whatever. Some people are going to factor in irrational reasons when making their light bulb purchases, but your position relies on the idea that the only factor one takes into consideration when buying a light bulb is the cost, yet that is no more true for light bulbs than any other product.

    So I think you are way off in your assumptions, but I don’t want you to feel unwelcome here to discuss.

  106. blf says

    On the leaded petrol thing: The original technical reason unleaded petrol was introduced was that the lead destroyed catalytic converters, which was the industry’s answer to stricter emissions regulations. (There is also the health aspect.) Except for extremely old vintage / classic historical cars, at the time the removal of lead did not cause a problem, except in the minds of certain petrolheads.

    Their problem was that the added lead also boosted the power, and they were unhappy about the lost of a few horse-equivalents.

    Since then, as unleaded has become very widely available, some engine designs / tuning have become less tolerant of added lead. This is in addition to the catalytic converter problem.

    The funny thing is why lead was ever added in the first place: It wasn’t due to the added power (that was seen as a beneficial side-effect), but due to the engine technology of the time. Specifically, the values and value-seats, which had a quite short lifespan. The added lead significantly lengthened the value / value-seat lifetime (I’m not entirely sure why).

    However, over the years value / value-seats improved enough that the added lead was no longer necessary. I don’t recall just when the added lead became un-necessary, but think it was by the mid-1960s, and very probably much much earlier. As far as I am aware, the only reason lead was kept was it was a cheap way to boost the octane rating (at the expense of air quality and people’s health).

  107. Nick Gotts says

    Lancifer@91

    Here is what I actually said

    …you have been been duped by a group (the NRDC) that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.

    So you are directly and unequivocally comparing what you call “uinscientific climatism” to Jim Jones’ dogma. But this is grossly dishonest, as you have been repeatedly informed that the vast majority of relevant scientific experts agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, and requires radical and urgent mitigation measures. It is you, not the NDRC, that is “irrationally wed” to unscientific beliefs about climate, because climate science shows your ideology to be an idiotic and dangerous dogma.

  108. says

    James Hanley,

    Are there still frequent discussions of issues by people coming from different sides of the ideological spectrum here, or has the place mostly solidified into a liberal forum where all the arguments are just nibbling around within a liberal framework?

    Hi James,

    I would say that this thread has be refreshingly “old school Dispatches.” (Apart from Ichthyic, who almost always tries to make do with nothing more than simple minded insults, as in #113.) There are still many on here, with the blog author and Michael Heath as the obvious but not the only examples, who try to make their points with reason rather than ideological assertions and immediate declarations of victory based on the manifest stupidity of opposing views.

    I think your viewpoint was an important one that both kept the threads interesting and raised the level of discussion. Speaking for myself, you are missed.

    I am somewhat amazed that you were able to express libertarian views without a rapid descent into thread hell.

  109. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes @ 91:

    I am amused to see Michael Heath’s little delusional vignettes, where in he triumphally recounts (without quotes or links of course) some straw man version of a previous discussion we had months or even years ago.

    Here’s a link to the debate starting with a comment post from you misrepresenting what I wrote, apparently because you didn’t know then what an negative external cost even was: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/12/10/monckton-thrown-out-of-climate-conference/#comment-204037. It’s not a strawman, the debate on sugar externalities reads even more idiotically now than it did then given all the new evidence since then on the over-consumption of sugar.

    lancifer @ 13:

    As far as saving us from the evil coal fired plants is concerned, you have been been duped by a group that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.
    Ed, I’m a bit disappointed that you have swallowed the NRDC’s propaganda and are repeating it here, rather than advocating for Americans to make their own decisions about what light bulbs to purchase.

    I respond @ 61:

    A group more accurately and popularly known as scientists. And only in Winguttia is doing science known as “unscientific”, and of course, Orwell’s books. Hint Lancifer: he’s critical of those who do it.
    I didn’t know that Wingnuttiia thought scientists doing science was just like Jim Jones’ followers; hmmm – I’m skeptical most Winguttians are that stupid and delusional – not even Michelle Bachman and Louie Gohmert are this nuts. So I think I’ll put that down to psychological projection – again.

    lancifer writes:

    Show me where I said that Mr. Heath.

    @ 13 where I quote it here, again.

    lancifer @ 91 writes:

    Here is what I actually said

    …you have been been duped by a group (the NRDC) [The phrase in parentheses was not @ 13 - Heath] that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.
    The comment clearly referenced the irrationality of members of the environmental activist nut jobs at the NRDC not “scientists”.
    [Emphasized by Heath]

    Ed never cited the NRDC when it comes to coal plant emissions contributing to climate change. You pulled that out of your own ass. The fact that Ed gets his science from scientists, unlike you, has been well established.

    So readers presuming that Ed gets his science from scientists coupled to your not referring to the NRDC until later in your post, makes it safe for us to presume your “group” refers to scientists. You’ve disparaged them many times before so this is not unprecedented.

    I understand you’re now remediating a sloppily written post* given you led with a pronoun prior to naming the actual group you meant to reference. However that has you now projecting your own weakness onto Ed. That you presume Ed gets his science from non-science groups (the dangers of coal emissions) just because of your antipathy towards science. Either way what you write here says a lot about you, and it ain’t good, and nothing about Ed.

    *Something we all occasionally do in blog posts and comment posts.

  110. colnago80 says

    Re dingojack @ #119

    Actually, as it turned out the addition of tetra-ethal-lead to gasoline (petrol to the Limeys and Aussies) serves two purposes. (1) it provides anti-knock protection to the engine; (2) it lubricates the valve stem seals and prevents wear. When the switch was made to unleaded gas, it was found that the valve stem seals had to be hardened because of the loss of the lubrication. Older cars that tried to use unleaded gas found excessive in the valve stem seals.

  111. Michael Heath says

    I too miss James Hanley’s posts here. I too think this forum doesn’t have enough push-back on some liberal arguments that depend on some of the worst attributes of liberalism.

    However I think we need to be careful when referencing the drop in libertarian arguments in this forum. Personally I don’t miss libertarian arguments, I instead would like to see more sane conservative arguments though there are few people in the U.S. that even fit into this group.

    Conditions have changed since the mid-2000s when Ed was making far more libertarian arguments, where he rarely does now (in terms of those arguments differing from what liberals argue). From a number of perspectives libertarianism has changed, and so has the populace. We should consider that when comparing the mid-2000s to the point where Ed moved his blog here.

    First, libertarian arguments used to be merely abstract arguments since they had no power and little influence, the movement’s arguments were at times an interesting check against the powerful conservative and moderate/liberal movements (in reference to the U.S. only). I enjoyed reading Reason magazine for many years; now I find it sophomoric.

    [I presume there is no powerful liberal movement in the U.S. which is why I add moderate to the label. I think our European readers would second that or instead argue I should instead use the term 'center-right/liberal' and from their perspective I would concede that.]

    But once power is gained and influence wielded, we need to begin to judge a movement by more than its abstract dispassionate rhetoric, and instead by what it actually does and the impact that behavior’s had on humanity and the environment. In this regard, I don’t think libertarianism has the cachet it once had with non-conservatives, where I think its earned our ire.

    I also think the U.S. went through a period where liberal was considered a pejorative, especially in the 1990s and early-2000s; I see those days ending, in spite of the fact we don’t have any authentic and exemplary liberal political leaders. Instead I think the power of liberal arguments in the public square is becoming more emergent (I realize this is an empirical assertion where i’m not citing data, perhaps I can look this up in the next few days). So a lot of people growing up and coming out of conservative-dominated environments, whose psychological profile fit liberalism, toyed with libertarianism instead because they didn’t want to be a part of a group so disdained by those around them. I count myself in that lot though that period was brief for me and I almost always identify as a moderate. It appears Ed’s done the same though migrating to liberalism though he should speak for himself on this, I’m only sharing my perspective.

    So I think our assessment of libertarianism is now more deservedly harsh where non-conservatives are more openly liberal. Of course this observation could hold only for this forum and not the country at large, so my perspective could be defectively narrow. I know I’ve certainly evolved into being more liberal. That’s because the more history I read and the more I study what experts argue the more I find liberalism/progressivism performing in a far superior manner than all other political ideologies.

  112. says

    lancifer “Of course you see Koch brother bogey men behind every opinion on climate change that doesn’t rigidly conform with your extreme and irrationally alarmist opinions.”
    This Michael Heath in your head must be *terrifying*.

     
    jameshanley “(I do know that in the old days there were certainly bloggers who hated my libertarianness–hello Democommie and Raging Bee–but I never felt that libertarians were generally unwelcome to even participate, whereas now I do feel really really unwelcome…”
    I don’t mind you. You’re not worse than Hitler*. Even if you do hog the salad bar. And spend an awful lot of time in the bathroom.

     
    * “Worse than Hitler!”, copyright The Internet, 2005.

  113. colnago80 says

    Re blf @ #116

    The issue of the valve stem seats didn’t arise until the late 1960s when it was discovered that unleaded gas led to excessive wear. The valve stem seats were only hardened after owners complained. In the early 1980s, there were a few cars that were able to meet the emissions standards then in place without a catalytic converter. However, owners of such vehicles were advised not to use leaded gas because, particularly if the engines were fuel injected because the added lead seemed to cause problems with the injectors. At the time, I owned a 1980 Honda Accord that was carborated and had no catalytic converter but the owners manual said not to use leaded gas. When I asked a mechanic about it, he said that the tolerances in such engines were very tight and use of leaded gasoline could lead to excessive wear.

  114. colnago80 says

    Re james Hanley @ #104

    Speaking only for myself, I welcome the contributions of Prof. Hanley, even when I don’t agree with him, which is most of the time. I’m sure that his fellow Michigander, Ed Brayton feels the same.

  115. D. C. Sessions says

    Random comments:

    1) People make their decisions on perceived values, which depend rather strongly on environment. The perceived value of CFLs and LEDs, especially in some circles, is very low. Not least due to people getting their information from Sarah Palin et al, but also from disapproval from friends and other associates.

    2) All fluorescent lights, due to physics, have a problem at low temperatures. Even here in Phoenix, where “low” is “below 50F.” For other reasons they also have a problem at high temperatures, where “high” is outside of any range humans live. This, along with short duty cycles, keeps them out of appliances. Also, fluorescent lights (thanks again to their physics) have a narrow output range: they don’t dim worth a damn.

    3) LEDs lose efficiency at high temperatures. It’s pretty much continuous from liquid nitrogen up to hundreds of degrees C. In other words, no oven lighting — that’s going to be incandescent for a long time yet, perhaps barring fiber optics. On the other hand, they’re the best refrigerator lights you can imagine since they thrive on low temps and short duty cycles compared to just about any other lighting technology. And when I say that LEDs love low temps, I mean it: one of my sons used to do a demonstration where he dipped a string of LEDs into liquid nitrogen at constant power and the brightness difference was dramatic. LEDs are continuously dimmable all the way from zero to full output.

    4) I’ll repeat that IMHO the big problem with both LEDs and CFLs in the long run is that we are hamstringing them by forcing them to imitate Thomas Edison’s 19th-century 120-volt lamps — except that Edison at least fed his with direct current. Since both require converters from 120 VAC to operate, they cost more (the converter is a big part of the cost) and can’t be readily dimmed by duty-cycle modulation the way incandescent lamps can.

  116. dingojack says

    SLC – Aaaaah, I see. (You learn something new every day).
    DC Sessions – Is 60F problematic for fluros?
    Dingo

  117. Reginald Selkirk says

    Home Depot has dropped the price of Cree 40W and 60E (equivalent) bulbs to $10 each. These are the best out there in terms of quality and efficiency.

    I agree with D.C. Sessions that LEDs will be even better when we redesign for them, instead of dropping them in to replace incandescents.

    Some LED bulbs can do dimming. But LEDs are actually capable of better dimming than incandescents; with much better reproducibility and colour stability. But the circuit design to accomplish this is totally different, it involves PWM (pulse width modulation).

    One of the limitations on LED bulbs is heat. Incandescents actually require heat; the filament gets so hot it glows. In LEDs, heat is bad for the LED. You might think that they produce less heat since they are so much more efficient, and this is true, but all the heat they produce is right at the LED. So a heat sink is needed. But what if, instead of mimicking a bulb, you designed a fixture for LEDs and incorporated the heat sinking in from the start?

    RE D.C. Sessions point #4, for a lighting fixture with multiple LEDs (rather than a single ‘bulb’) the DC conversion can be done once for multiple LED lamps, thus regaining some cost efficiency.

    New geometries will be possible. Already LED “ropes” are popular for decorative purposes. Imagine a rope of light going around the edges of your ceiling. This is a natural geometry for under-cabinet lighting as well. Or a thin panel of light that you apply to a ceiling.

    Or imagine entirely new geometries that you simply would not think of with incandescents or fluorescents. Take a look at this chandelier, for example:
    élan model 83018 Allos
    If I had the money, plus a 20 foot ceiling to hang it from, I’d buy one today.

    LEDs are already a clear choice for monochromatic lighting(traffic lights), long life, impact resistance (work lights) and high efficiency. The only thing impeding their total takeover of lighting is initial cost.

  118. Reginald Selkirk says

    Those Cree 40W(6W) and 60W(9.5W) LED bulbs are dimmable, and come with a 10 year warranty.
    They are going to drive the market.

  119. savagemutt says

    I am somewhat amazed that you were able to express libertarian views without a rapid descent into thread hell.

    I think the difference here is that the comments are usually focused on a very specific issue, which depends less on a poster’s overall ideology. Other FTB posts seem to be more along the line of “Libertarians are Sociopaths…Discuss*” which doesn’t really bode well for any sort of conversation.

    I too miss Hanley’s posts (and yours) which challenge my own views.

    *I have to admit, I do think right-libertarians do have a certain lack of compassion, but insisting they have none at all is idiotic.

  120. machintelligence says

    About low temperature fluorescent use: I was responsible for maintaining the outside lights at a condo complex where there were 800+ CFL 13W bulbs in service. We marked the date of installation on each bulb and typically had to replace 20 or so per month. After a stretch of -15 F days nearly 80 needed to be replaced, but most of those were more than five years old. Typical life span was 4+ years in dusk to dawn service.
    BTW automatic photocell controls only work with CFLs if they contain a relay to switch the power on and off. The cheaper ones that use SCR technology are not compatible. That being said, the single bulb screw in photocell controllers made for CFLs were very unreliable (frequently failed after less than a year) and all of the different “brands” were made by the same manufacturer. We either used a master light relay for the entire building or went to fixture mounted photocontrols.

  121. lancifer says

    Coming to FTB and challenging the idea that we face catastrophic climate change is about as fruitful as going to the Socialist Party USA website and advocating the benefits of capitalism.

    Throw in a discussion of whether the government should limit the choices of citizens and you are engaging in an exercise in futility that would give Don Quixote pause.

    As I leave to engage in more constructive activities, pretty much anything else would qualify, I post the following comparison of IPCC climate models with reality .

    http://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/73-climate-models_reality.gif

    These models are failing miserably, so using them to advocate for “radical and urgent mitigation measures” is a faith based exercise that must appeal to emotion and ideology to be supported.

  122. blf says

    colnago80 is apparently broadly correct that the value-seats problem existed for far longer than I recalled. The EPA itself, in 1995, said:

    Pre-1971 engines were equipped with “soft” valve seats and leaded gasoline acted as a lubricant to prevent excessive wear of the valve seats. Using these engines with unleaded fuel in high-speed/high-load situations could result in some valve seat wear. … Substitute lubricant additives are available at auto supply stores to help this situation. In addition, valve seats are usually replaced with [sic] at the time an older engine is rebuilt.

    I totally forgot about the problem of “knocking”, and know nothing about the history of anti-knocking. A bit of very quick research suggests the modern solutions are basically careful design of the injection system and geometries of the cylinder, piston, et al

  123. D. C. Sessions says

    I think the difference here is that the comments are usually focused on a very specific issue, which depends less on a poster’s overall ideology. Other FTB posts seem to be more along the line of “Libertarians are Sociopaths…Discuss*” which doesn’t really bode well for any sort of conversation.

    There’s also the little matter of posters who self-identify as “libertarian” vs. national brand, which is defined by Rand Paul and others who are basically plutocratic authoritarians.

    A thread like this that starts with a single issue avoids the whole branding obstacle, or at least does until someone brings Ayn Rand into it as a “libertarians believe this and therefore __________” fallacy.

  124. Peter B says

    @128 Reginald Selkirk

    I mentioned my friends’ company in #62. They have a worklight offered at $99.95. Video on the web at dropled.com. I saw the bulb after the video was taken. Badly deformed but still working.

    In talking with a few auto repair people its competition is LED flashlights. The first question one mechanic asked was, “Do they have a 12 volt version.” I told my friends. “It would be easy to do but for now we are working our butts off interfacing with electrical installers and high end hotel chains.”

    @119 dingojack and @121 colnago80
    On leaded and unleaded gas —

    It was added to increase octane numbers. In gasoline engines the fuel air mixture is compressed. The very act of compression increases the temperature of that mixture. (“Adiabatic heating” to thermodynamics geeks.) Compress to much and the mixture ignites early, a.k.a. knock. Octane numbers reflect knock resistance. But (more thermodynamics here) more compression produces higher temperatures which leads to more energy extracted from the same amount of fuel.

    Without lead more refining is needed to increase octane. More refining means less end product out of the same amount of crude oil. That increases the cost.

  125. D. C. Sessions says

    Here’s a little study on “conservatives” and CFLs. The gist: As long as the benefits of CFLs were put in strictly money-saving terms, conservatives snap them up. But add an “ECO FRIENDLY” sticker to the package and they won’t.

    See my comment above on “perceived value.” Which includes spending money to spite “them” by causing environmental damage even if it means ruining your own forested property.

    And, yes, that complies with a pure market-driven model, but a lot of market fundamentalists don’t recognize that that kind of market model is incompatible with the theory that leads to markets being optimal economically.

  126. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #134

    Well, well, J. R. Christy is, apparently the author of the paper from which this figure is extracted. A little Googling indicates that Prof. Christy is a professor at Un. of Alabama, Huntsville. In his list of papers, we find several with co-authors Roger Pielke and Roy Spencer, two notorious climate change deniers. In addition to which, Spencer is a YEC. Doesn’t speak well for Prof. Christy.

    And incidentally, Sir Lancelot didn’t bother to cite the paper from which the figure is extracted. That’s a no no in academia.

  127. blf says

    Pinging, value / valve-seat wear, and octane rating are all related. Valve / valve-seat failures (at least at the time lead was first added) were often caused by pinging. And the higher the octane rating, the less likely the engine will ping.

    Apparently, the experiments Kettering, Midgley, et al did when they discovered the “usefulness” of added lead (or to be more accurate, Tetraethyllead (TEL)) were focused on knocking, so (pedantically) I misled in saying the original technical reason was to increase value and value-seat lifetimes.

    Interestingly, apparently Kettering, Midgley, et al were warned at the time that lead was very dangerous. There was also apparently a scandal about two years later (c.1924) when numerous workers died at refineries due to TEL. Nonetheless, apparently after a (short) ban, lead continued to be used. This scandal and the early warnings are an aspect of the story I am totally unfamiliar with (having only discovered it today!).

  128. lancifer says

    Michael Heath says,

    Ed never cited the NRDC when it comes to coal plant emissions contributing to climate change.

    Perhaps you should look again.

    The new standards eventually will save as much electricity as is generated by 30 large coal-burning power plants – and the associated pollution that harms our health and contributes to climate change – every single year. (Emphasis mine).

    You continue to argue in bad faith and make, I’ll be magnanimous here, incorrect statements.

  129. says

    “I am not a Luddite.”

    Don’t know if you’re a luddite. That you’re a dickhead and a moronic AGW denialist is not up for debate.

    “Of course all of you statist twits have a whole laundry list of things that the government should mandate.”

    Do you have any fucking idea what you’re talking about? Don’t answer, it’s obvious that you don’t.

    “It doesn’t even begin to address my question, which is why we think people won’t pursue their own self-interest by shifting away from icandescents to save money; why we think they have to be mandated to pursue their own interest.”

    Child safety restraints on amusement rides. Auto seatbelts. Airbags. Requirements by building and electrical codes for installation of safe water, sewer, gas and electrical. There are hundreds, in not thousands, of other devices, policies and programs that are NOT market driven or based on consumer consensus.

    @ 119:

    “Anti-knocking” (anti pre-detonation) is one of the reasons, along with leaded fuels contributing to longer valve life by putting a “cushion” of lead oxide between the valve and valve face, IIRC.

  130. lancifer says

    Colagno 80,

    Now that you have conducted a nasty little game of guilt by association of an accomplished scientist, a former IPCC lead author and a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, can you address the data in the graph?

    It is clear that IPCC models, upon which the whole case for “radical and urgent mitigation measures” is based, are deeply out of sync with reality.

  131. D. C. Sessions says

    One thing the lighting standards have in common with the shift to unleaded fuels is that both are aimed at reducing negative externalities — something that market systems don’t deal with (by definition.)

  132. caseloweraz says

    Robin Pilger: What I want to know is where are my FIPEL light bulbs?

    Maybe you left them in the trunk of your flying car?

  133. lancifer says

    “Robin Pilger: What I want to know is where are my FIPEL light bulbs?”

    Maybe you left them in the trunk of your flying car?

    Or behind your local utility company’s fusion generator.

  134. davem says

    new and improved incandescents that use 28% less energy

    28%? Not worth the efffort. I’ve been using CFLs for 15? 20? yeas now. The most powerful is 11 Warts, and I’ve had to replace one bulb since the start. I still have all but one of the spares I bought years ago. WTF would you want to use incandescent bulbs, except to be contrary? I’d swap to LEDs, but the CFLs just keep on going…

  135. Jordan Genso says

    lancifer @142

    You seem to be taking the approach that if Group A (the scientific community) says X, and Group B (the NRDC) says X, then if someone cites Group A’s statement, you can then accuse the person of citing Group B.

    It’s like the billboard that had the Unabomber as someone who accepts climate change is real. You might as well say that Ed cited the Unabomber.

    Or is there something from Ed’s statement that makes the source uniquely the NRDC?

  136. lancifer says

    Jordan Genso,

    There is no such thing as “the scientific community” and since Ed did quote the NRDC it is hardly out of line for me to question using them as a source.

    As far as I know the uni-bomber wasn’t quoted by anyone advocating AGW so comparing my accurately citing Ed’s reliance on the NRDC to those ill-advised bill boards is not a good comparison.

    Perhaps you could address the graph I posted instead of beleaguering the chain of events that lead up to it.

  137. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #150

    I am not going to address the graph until you tell me where it came from. I assume that it was from a paper written by Prof. Christie or a presentation by him. Without knowing what data was used, the graph proves nothing. By the way, Christie testified before the same House Committee that Prof. Muller testified before and their conclusions differed. The fact that Christie claimed in his testimony that the average temperature hasn’t increased in the last 14 years indicates he is in bed with the deniers. He does the same thing that all the other deniers do, namely cites 1998 as his base point. This is disingenuous because 1998 is an outlier due to the fact that there was an especially strong El Nino that year. This has been pointed out to you on several occasions but you continue to cite references that shove this under the rug.

    As for Christie’s association with Spencer and Pielke, when one gets into the pen with the pigs, one may expect to emerge with a coating of mud.

  138. colnago80 says

    By the way, speaking of coal burning power plants, if Sir Lancelot thinks they are great, try relocating to Beijing or other Chinese cities which now have the worst smog in the world due to the proliferation of coal burning power plants. Or, some hot summer day, drive along Skyline Drive along the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia where you will observe smoke over the Shenandoah Valley from coal burning power plants in the Midwest. There are even signs pointing this out.

  139. Jordan Genso says

    lancifer, I have no interest in arguing over data points or graphs, as I am not well-enough informed on the subject to know if there are valid explanations for the data or graphs that don’t contradict climate change. There may or may not be.

    And I misread your quoting @142, not realizing which quotes were stated by which party. So I will admit that my comment @149 doesn’t relate to this scenario. I shouldn’t be commenting when trying to care for a sick 4-month old.

  140. jameshanley says

    To those who welcomed me, thank you. But several times when I’ve posted here recenly I’ve been effectively told to bugger off, and I see here direct commands to Lance to go away.

    I guess I don’t get why some people so desperately need an echo chamber. As I said previously, a large proportion of my own readers are liberals, and although I consider myself libertarian, I rarely read libertarian blogs, and when I do, I almost never bother with the threads.

    But again, thanks to those who welcomed me back. I do miss some of you. You’re welcme to drop by my (rather irregular) blog, bawdyhouse.wordpress.com.

  141. jameshanley says

    @democommie,

    Auto seatbelts. Airbags.

    Your history is inaccurate. Both of those were market developments that were increasing in demand prior to policies being passed mandating them. The mere fact that a policy was passed does mot in itsekf demonstrate that the market wasn’t moving forward with a solution. Politicians have incentives in addition to the incentive to solve problems. In fact as far as re-election goes, appearing to solve problems is as satisfactory as, and much easier than, actually solving them. Case in point, Tea Party Republicans. ;)

  142. jameshanley says

    @colnago80,

    Roger Pielke and Roy Spencer, two notorious climate change deniers.

    I don’t know of Spencer, but the claim that Pielke is a clinate change denier is a falsehood. I’ve seen it made before, but in fact Pielke explicitly states that AGW is iccurring. This is so whether you’re talking about zriger Pielke, Sr. (See here or Jr. (See , third set of bullet points).

    It appears you have a recurring tendency to make false accusations about people.

  143. dingojack says

    James – I hate to break it you but – times change.
    Back in 2007 stock markets were soaring, house prices where giving huge year-on-year returns Libertarians were everywhere, spruiking the Gospel according to Ayn Rand.The market could make you 1000% more physically attractive, the market could transport you to Mars (just like on Star Trek), the market could grow back your amputated leg (over night!). The market would always go up, the market was solution to every problem, the market was magic, the market could do everything. Libertarians heartily pooh-poohed liberals who were warning of trouble ahead as ‘wishy-washy’ and ‘out of touch’, “look at the wonderful market”, they said

    Then came the crash.

    Suddenly the curtain was torn aside. People saw these libertarians were nothing more than narcissistic sociopaths with all the charm (and utility) of a syphilic chancre. That all the nonsense the libertarians had spouted during the boom was now being amply falsified by realities of the crash. The people suddenly realised that while those few at the top had got more and more, the rest got less and less. And now, even in the very jaws of the crash, the top 1% were still getting fatter and fatter wallets while the working poor got to live in cardboard boxes under the overpass.
    Everyone could now see that, largely, libitarian ‘philosophy’ boiled down to two maxims:
    “No care, no responsibility” and ” I’m all right Jack, fuck you!”
    So excuse me for not playing Hearts & Flowers for you on my tiny violin, I’m just paying you the same courtesy as you did me in 2007 when I said it would all end in tears.
    :| Dingo.
    ———–
    (“… but apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?”)

  144. freemage says

    james: Honestly, I think the difference between the reception you and lancifer received has a great deal to do with how you both present your arguments. Lancifer is typical of the sorts of libertarians we’ve had around here lately, and honestly… I don’t find any reason or value in their comments. So there’s little if any patience with those who identify themselves as such so strongly.

    You, on the other hand, generally consider your opponents’ actual posts, and respond to their points. I may disagree with you a majority of the time, but I at least don’t have the impression I’m speaking to the internet version of a street-corner preacher blaring into a megaphone while reading from a script.

    So yes, I’ll listen to your opinions; I may even agree with some of your individual points. For instance, yes, the move from incandescent bulbs was pretty much horribly marketed, and so one of the cores of resistance to the switch formed (manufacturer inertia would remain, though, as another cause of resistance). But now that that resistance has formed, I’d argue that the time it would take to undo the damage without regulatory measures would be damaging on the health and environmental level.

  145. Michael Heath says

    jameshanley writes:

    . . . several times when I’ve posted here recenly I’ve been effectively told to bugger off, and I see here direct commands to Lance to go away.

    I guess I don’t get why some people so desperately need an echo chamber.

    The commenters telling others to “bugger off” are not representative of the entire forum.

    Some of us gag on dishonest arguments predominately dependent on logical fallacies, especially if they’re defamatory. That is what lancifer repeatedly does as we see here @ 13:

    As far as saving us from the evil coal fired plants is concerned, you have been been duped by a group that is as irrationally wed to unscientific climatism as Jim Jones’ followers were to his idiotic and dangerous dogma.
    Ed, I’m a bit disappointed that you have swallowed the NRDC’s propaganda and are repeating it here . . .

    Do I really need to slowly go through how outrageous, idiotic, illogical, undeservedly condescending, and defamatory this is?

    If lancifer’s not going to argue honestly and in good faith, he should expect to get a deserved dose of ire.

  146. colnago80 says

    Re James Hanley @ #158

    Roger Pielke Sr. is, at best, a climate change revisionists/skeptic. Here’s an article by Joe Romm calling out some of his prevarications. As to whether he is an actual climate change denialist, I leave to the readers to make their own determination. If he gives the impression that he is really not in the denialist camp, it would appear that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    By the way, let me make it perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding. At one time, skepticism as to AGW was warranted but that time has passed. In this regard, it is instructive to examine the case of Peter Duesberg relative to HIV/AIDS. Duesberg, was a skeptic on the relationship between HIV and AIDS back in the early 1980s when such skepticism was warranted. Unfortunately, as the evidence piled up, Duesberg went from being a useful skeptic to a nutcase, ignoring the evidence or denying it. Pielke and his comrade in arms Richard Lindzen are now coming close to Duesberg territory.

    As for Roy Spencer, he is a YEC, or at the least has not made ic clear as to what his view as to the age of the earth is (at best, he appears uncertain). There is no doubt that he is an evolution denier by his own admission. He has a substantial history of climate change denialism..

    http://goo.gl/Ivr0Hx.

  147. says

    “As for Christie’s association with Spencer and Pielke, when one gets into the pen with the pigs, one may expect to emerge with a coating of mud.”

    I think the “coating” is a little more “earthy”.

    “lancifer, I have no interest in arguing over data points or graphs, as I am not well-enough informed on the subject to know if there are valid explanations for the data or graphs that don’t contradict climate change. There may or may not be.”

    When one considers Lancifurious’s “sources”, it’s obvious that he is even less informed than you claim to be.

    “Your history is inaccurate. Both of those were market developments that were increasing in demand prior to policies being passed mandating them. ”

    Wiki (yeah, I know, not definitive) has enough information to get started. You can go look at the primary sources. I was a child in 1959 when Congress, after about 50 years of autocarnage on U.S. highways. The automakers have a long history of resisting ANY change that costs money (think the Pinto fuel tank) or reduces profit–whether that change will save lives or not. Both airbags and seatbelts were known to work and known to be instrumental in saving the lives of both drivers and occupants long before they were put into automobiles. I can’t find a link but there’s a video out there of a 50’s era automotive engineer and his sons demonstrating the drill for what they would do to brace themselves, sans seatbelts, for a frontal collision. It is in the same category as the “Duck’n’cover” videos of preparing for a nuclear blast–and just as ludicrous.

    To use the other analogy that was forwarded in this thread a while back. Smoking, chewing or sucking on tobacco are all things that are KNOWN to be instrumental in creating or accelerating a host of health problems. That the behaviors can be stopped is not the argument. That U.S. corporations should be allowed to profit, at the expense of those who poison themselves through stupidity or helplessness (not a good excuse–I smoked for nearly 20 years and stopped in 1982 with no chemical or “counseling assistance) and avoid the expense of treating those, allowing the public at large to pay for that “externality” is an argument that could and should be made. It will never happen while the corporatists, their lobbyists and congressional shills have money to spend.

    Venal politics is what Teabaggism is about. They are as committed to public service as the grifters in the pulpit are to saving their flocks.

  148. says

    P.S.

    I assumed, Mr. Hanley, that you had left to pursue other activities. I know your skin to be at least as thick as mine (your skull prolly ain’t, though) so the fact that some people are mean to you (me included, at times) never occurred to me as a reason. I find some of your statements to be hilariously wrongheaded, as I’m sure you do many, if not most, of mine–I can live with that.

    Lancifer is not only wrong. He is mendacious, evasive and disinterested in the truth. I don’t give a fuck what he says, here or elsewhere; I would be happier IF he said it elsewhere.

  149. says

    “Do I really need to slowly go through how outrageous, idiotic, illogical, undeservedly condescending, and defamatory this is?”

    Not if you’re doing it for lancepoo’s benefit. It will have the same effect as singing lessons for swine.

  150. D. C. Sessions says

    Given the denialist progression [1], which is playing out as long predicted, the fact that someone now reluctantly concedes that there has been some global warming [2] isn’t exactly a powerful endorsement of his relationship with reality.

    [1] “No, it isn’t happening” => “It happened but it isn’t happening now” => “It’s happening, but it isn’t human-caused” => “It’s human-caused, but it’s a good thing” => “It’s human-caused and bad, but not worth the expense to prevent” => “We could have prevented it, but now it’s too late so suck it up”
    [2] About 20 years late, and only up to 1998.

  151. colnago80 says

    Re democommie @ #163

    When one considers Lancifurious’s “sources”, it’s obvious that he is even less informed than you claim to be.

    It’s even worse then that. Sir Lancelot posts a link to a figure, without any citation as to where it came from or the source of the data on which it is based and then demands that we comment on it. With some Googling, I determined that it is probably a figure in a paper produced by a Prof. Christy of the Un. of Alabama, Huntsville, who he tells us is a world famous expert on climate. Well duh, I have neither the time or the patience to pour through all of Christy’s publications to investigate the source of the figure and then evaluate its reliability. I would only point out that Christy was invited to testify before a House Committee chaired by, I believe, Darrell Issa, a climate change denier and certified asshole, and which was packed with other Rethuglican climate change deniers. I would also note that Prof. Muller of UC Berkeley also testified before the same committee and his testimony was diametrically opposite to that of Christy, which apparently was not well received by the tea party science deniers on the committee.

  152. lancifer says

    D.C. Sessions,

    Why must you use words like “denier” instead of acknowledging that people can have different views of a very complex topic?

    I am not “denying” anything. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the human contribution to it’s current concentration in the atmosphere has no doubt had some effect. The question is how much and should we take radical and draconian measure to curtail the use of fossil fuels. I am a scientist and a college educator and it is my informed opinion that there is no rational case for doing so.

    The crux of the issue is that most current models assume large positive feed backs that amplify the expected CO2 only effect (projected to be about 1 degree Celsius) to much higher levels. If these positve feed backs have been miscalculated then there is little reason to fear the effects of anthropogenic CO2.

    I also point out that I am the only person that has posted scientific data on this thread in support of that position.

    The graph shows the “projections” of the models used by the IPCC graphed with the actual data from the UAH and RSS satellite temperature record. I don’t believe that Dr. Christy submitted the graph for “peer review” but nor have I seen anyone challenge the easily verifiable data contained there in.

    These models are quickly diverging from reality and along with them any reason to expect catastrophic warming that is the basis for a wide range of current and proposed CO2 mitigation policies.

  153. lancifer says

    And I misread your quoting @142, not realizing which quotes were stated by which party. So I will admit that my comment @149 doesn’t relate to this scenario. I shouldn’t be commenting when trying to care for a sick 4-month old.

    No problem Jordan. I hope your child is better soon.

  154. lancifer says

    James Hanley is much nicer than I am. That may account for some of the difference in out treatment here at Dispatches.

    I can only take so much abuse before I hurl some back. James appears to be thicker-skinned than I.

  155. says

    “James Hanley is much nicer than I am. That may account for some of the difference in out treatment here at Dispatches.”

    James Hanley is not a lying asshole.

  156. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #170

    The graph shows the “projections” of the models used by the IPCC graphed with the actual data from the UAH and RSS satellite temperature record. I don’t believe that Dr. Christy submitted the graph for “peer review” but nor have I seen anyone challenge the easily verifiable data contained there in.

    From this statement, I take it that there is no document describing how the figure was obtained. The description given by Sir Lancelot is worthless without a supporting document that describes the data used, the assumptions made, and the procedures used to extract the data. If this figure was submitted for a peer review to a respectable journal, it would be rejected without such supporting documentation. It really won’t do Sir Lancelot. I speak as one who has had a number of technical papers published in peer reviewed journals.

    I have a suspicion that this figure was prepared as a part of the testimony provided to the Congressional committee by Prof. Christy, which was dominated by Tea Party Rethuglicans who would believe anything that a climate change denier like Christy said. Apparently the committee wasn’t impressed with the contrary testimony provided by Prof. Muller at the same hearing. Unlike Christy, Muller prepared a substantial document fully describing what he and his colleagues had done, which included Prof. Arthur Rosenfeld from whom I took my first course in physics at UC Berkeley.

  157. savagemutt says

    It’s an unsourced, unexplained gif on the internet! What more proof could you possibly need?!!

  158. ildi says

    jameshanley:

    Are there still frequent discussions of issues by people coming from different sides of the ideological spectrum here, or has the place mostly solidified into a liberal forum where all the arguments are just nibbling around within a liberal framework?

    That framework is still pretty damn big, it’s just that people who said clueless things like

    I mean, people are either motivated by doing what’s right or they’re motivated by greed, right? So won’t those who aren’t motivated by it just being the right thing to do be motivated by their own greed?

    seemed to drift away, especially after the Great Recession. I figured they had a Greenspan aha moment? Guess not.

    I still get a chuckle thinking about your wack notion that the Cuyahoga river would never have caught on fire if the companies had owned the river. Good times!

  159. dingojack says

    ildi – I don’t know why, but this moment from Everybody Loves Raymond came to mind:

    ROBERT: Laughing. At me? That’s just wack.
    RAY [as if explaining to a child]: Robert, we’re Italians, ‘wack’ means something completely different to us.
    [ROBERT thinks about this for a second, then brightening says - ]
    ROBERT: Hasidic Jews, now there’s an interesting people….
    RAY [warningly]: Robert-
    [ROBERT Shrugs, spreading both arms out from his body bend at the elbows, palms upward]
    ROBERT: What – a man can’t dream?

    Dingo

  160. Dunc says

    The graph shows the “projections” of the models used by the IPCC graphed with the actual data from the UAH and RSS satellite temperature record. I don’t believe that Dr. Christy submitted the graph for “peer review” but nor have I seen anyone challenge the easily verifiable data contained there in.

    I have a comment in moderation dealing with this. (I presume it’s in moderation because it contains several links to the relevant actual data.)

    You are quite right when you say that the data are easily verifiable. Unfortunately for you, the real data (either the IPCC projections or the UAH and RSS datasets) don’t much resemble the graph in question. Maybe you should have verified them first?

    Then, of course, there’s the minor inconvenience that the RSS datasets don’t actually measure what the IPCC projects, so that comparison would be meaningless anyway, even if you did get the data right (which it doesn’t).

    If that’s the best you’ve got, you’re in a very bad way indeed.

  161. dingojack says

    Dunc – RE: Links
    I think you can include two links in a post without it going to moderation (I think). More than two I’d do it in successive posts with an indication that the links included are further to the previous post.
    Alternatively you can post it all in one post and then contact Ed and ask for him to review the post (the linkage rules aren’t of his volition alone, but a collective agreement amongst the FTB group), he’s usually pretty prompt and amenable to bribes and inducements.* [although prone not to keep too close an eye on the moderation queue, I'm afraid].
    Hope that helps somewhat,
    Dingo
    ——–
    * I’m kidding about the bribes and inducements.

  162. colnago80 says

    Re Dunc @ #180

    The graph is a crock. What a surprise! It is typical of the type of “research” performed by deniers like Christy. I suspected this because at least the line on the graph representing “data” doesn’t agree with other graphs that are available on the Internet (Phil Plait has posted a number of them). I suspect that there has been some cherry picking by Christy. This is exactly why I stated that the graph by itself without documentation is worthless.

    There is a limit of 2 hot links per comment. My experience is that comments that go into moderation never get out. Therefore, I suggest that you divide up the links into several comments (AFAIK, that’s all right with Brayton). Or alternatively, you could suppress hot linking. It has to be suppressed because links are automatically hot linked by the host of this blog.

  163. dingojack says

    SLC – will wonders never cease! Lancy agrees with someone else and you and I think alike.
    Perhaps the end really is near…spoooooky! :D
    Dingo

  164. says

    Are there still frequent discussions of issues by people coming from different sides of the ideological spectrum here, or has the place mostly solidified into a liberal forum where all the arguments are just nibbling around within a liberal framework?

    The liberal view has indeed solidified, for the simple reason that nearly all contrary views have been proven not only dead wrong, but deliberately fraudulent, through decades of direct experience, added onto centuries of historical experience. Hanley’s and Lance’s idiocy are only the most blatant examples of what empty malicious frauds the anti-liberal “alternatives” really are.

    Since we’re all having so much–that is, since we’re all benefitting individually–why was it necessary to require it? Is the belief that people aren’t capable of making decisions that are in their own benefit?

    Actually, yes, when people’s wages and incomes are being forced down everywhere in the name of “efficiency,” that really does diminish their ability to make decisions with longer-term benefit in mind. A guy with a gun at his head is not a guy one can expect to be thinking of his kids’ college fund. Also, when it comes to personal conservation decisions, people tend to support short-term sacrifices when they see their neighbors doing the same thing — that makes the sacrifice more effective. I’m not likely to spend extra money on a new lightbulb if it’s only my house reducing consumption of energy; but if I see it as part of a nationwide trend, that makes it both fairer and more effective.

  165. Dunc says

    I didn’t save the comment before submitting it… We’ll see if Ed can dig it out of moderation, but the essence is simply this: the supposed “IPCC projections” are obviously too high (even for the highest emission scenario), and the supposed “reality” is obviously too low. Most of the rest was just speculation as to how the originator might have managed to come up with such obviously absurd “data” without simply making it up. The links to the real IPCC projections and the real UAH and RSS datasets weren’t really necessary as all 3 are easily searchable, but I included them because complaining about unsourced data without linking your own sources grates on me.

  166. Donnie says

    Question: If wearing seat belts are so good for you, why can’t people decide to wear seat belts on their own

    Answer: Because people are fucking idiots and do things against their self interests all the time (i.e., women, minorities, middle class men and women voting for a GOP candidate).

    We cannot regulate for the common good regarding voting preferences, but we can regulate for the comon good on other issues – seat belt use and light bulb use. Next up, can we start regulating against the overuse of ferterlizers in farming via an enviromental tax, before we completely destroy the Gulf of Mexico?

  167. Nathair says

    Because people are fucking idiots and do things against their self interests all the time (i.e., women, minorities, middle class men and women voting for a GOP candidate).

    You’re missing the pattern here. They make claims about rational consumers and the hand of the market etc. When it is pointed out that the underlying assumptions (people are rational, informed and in agreement about what constitutes best value and greatest utility etc.) are thoroughly invalid they demand proof of this. (Their argument, of course, requires none.) When you provide an example they explain how that particular example is a special case which does not apply generally or to the subject at hand. Smoking is about addiction, Anti-vax is about stupidity, light bulbs though, that’s where the pure rational consumer would strut their stuff if only the government wouldn’t interfere. Provide a dozen examples and you will get a dozen quibbles about how each particular case doesn’t quite apply. Provide data that shows people are not rational in this exact case (like the study showing conservatives reject “green” alternatives even if it “costs” them more) and we are treated to a long suffering sigh and a lament about how the poor libertarians are being abused here and how sad it is that we don’t have open minds.

    All but pointless.

  168. says

    Nathair: Don’t forget that libertarians also define “rational” to mean whatever they want it to mean (greed is “rational,” compassion is not, and a guy with a gun to his head is being “rational” when he obeys the guy holding the gun); and talk out of both ends of their asses about “free choices and free markets” and “market FORCES” at the same time.

    Libertarianism is a many-layered scam.

  169. colnago80 says

    Re the Fairfax floozy @ #184

    Although I mostly disagree with him, IMHO, Prof. Hanley is someone worth reading and for the Fairfax floozy to put him in the same category as Sir Lancelot is seriously in error. I hope that Prof. Hanley doesn’t let the Fairfax floozy’s smears drive him away from this blog. He smears me all the time and it’s like water of a ducks back.

  170. oranje says

    “It’s unfortunate that Dr. Christy and his two “skeptic” colleagues continue to present this misleading and scientifically unsound information to the general public and policymakers, because the more we listen to them and the longer we wait, the worse the consequences will be.”

    from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html

    I would consider your arguments more seriously, Lancifer, if you weren’t so hyperbolic in your dismissals. For example, that models are “failing miserably.”

    Conspiracies are harder to come by than we realize, and to suggest that climate scientists would not be seeking the most correct solution is to impugn their motives and professionalism. I’ve seen nothing in the literature to warrant that.

  171. says

    …Prof. Hanley is someone worth reading and for the Fairfax floozy to put him in the same category as Sir Lancelot is seriously in error…

    Actually, Hanley has put HIMSELF in Lance’s category by explicitly supporting some of his denialist bullshit.

    Also, while Lance is just a moronic propagandized tool, Hanley has proven to be one of the knowing, willing propagandists; and has had nothing to offer here but laughably ridiculous, malicious, and dishonest libertarian blather-points, all of which have already been thoroughly punk’d, junk’d, debunk’d and defunk’d. That’s one of the reasons why he almost never shows up here anymore.

  172. colnago80 says

    Re the Fairfax funk @ #191

    I am afraid that Prof. Hanley has allowed himself to be driven away from this blog by the smear tactics of the Fairfax funk, among others. He should treat the smears of the Fairfax funk like I do when they are directed at me, as a source of amusement.

  173. says

    Of all the people who have attacked and debunked Hanley’s nonsense over the years, do I really stand out as the only one worth naming? Am I the leader of the Gang of Raging Bee Et Al?

    And do you really think Hanley is so stupid that he needs advice from a Likudnik chickenhawk who fantasizes about committing genocide with imaginary nuclear weapons?

    Dude, your fantasies about me would be funny if they weren’t to grindingly obsessive. Get a life already — or at least find a place where you can keep on arguing with Don Williams.

  174. colnago80 says

    Re the Fairfax fumbler @ #193

    Who are these other people who have attacked Prof. Hanley? I am certainly not among them.

  175. ildi says

    (sigh) I really didn’t need to be reminded that jameshanley is a political science professor. At least heddle can compartmentalize…

  176. lancifer says

    oranje,

    I would consider your arguments more seriously, Lancifer, if you weren’t so hyperbolic in your dismissals. For example, that models are “failing miserably.”

    Fair criticism.

    I’ll try to be less so in future remarks. Pointing out that IPCC model projections are not being verified by actual real world data is probably strong enough criticism for the open minded.

    Sadly, few of the people that post on the topic of climate change here at Dispatches have demonstrated that quality.

  177. says

    I have attacked James Hanley, heddle and, regrettably Kehrsam in the past. I thoroughly enjoyed the attacking and, at least at the time of the attack, was SURE I was doing the right thing. I have not, in a number of cases, changed my mind about the gist of the matters, but accept that we will disagree on some subjects. I prefer to let it go, in most cases with those commenters.

    Lancifer is a rather special case. He’s lying, he knows it and he continues to do it. Not much respect for anyone who goes in that direction. Sortalike dealing with the threadpirate mroberts or the unlamented Isabel–since reasoned responses are ignored or discounted, insults are pretty much all I have left to offer.

  178. lancifer says

    Dunc,

    The fact that the RSS and UAH satellite’s don’t directly measure surface temperatures (what I suppose you’re implying) is a pretty sad dodge. The anomaly of the two data sets very closely mirror the surface level thermometer data sets.

  179. lancifer says

    Lancifer is a rather special case. He’s lying, he knows it and he continues to do it.- democommie

    You, of course, just spew insults and personal invective. I hope, for your sake, it is only your persona here at FTB and does not reflect the way you preset yourself in person.

    If it is, you are one sad fellow indeed.

  180. Dunc says

    The anomaly of the two data sets very closely mirror the surface level thermometer data sets.

    No, they don’t. That’s either an admission of total ignorance, or a bare-faced lie. Given that you seem to be completely unaware that both UAH and RSS produce multiple datasets measuring various different things, I’m going to be generous and assume total ignorance… If you would like to continue with this line, you might want to at least specify which UAH or RSS datasets you’re talking about, and which you think are represented on that chart you linked.

    I do note that you haven’t attempted to address the other parts of my criticism, namely that (a) the alleged “IPCC projections” shown on that chart are also obviously incorrect, and (b) the alleged UAH and RSS measurements shown on the chart don’t actually match any of the datasets produced by either organisation as far as I can see. Of course, since neither you nor Christie have bothered to specify which datasets you think you’re talking about, it’s difficult to say for certain… What I can say for certain is that they’re quite a long way from the average global near-surface air temperature anomaly, which is what most people tend to assume when somebody doesn’t bother to specify what they’re talking about.

  181. colnago80 says

    Re Dunc @ #201

    This is the vice of there being no documentation as to the provenance of the figure.that Sir Lancelot has linked to. If you read his posts here, it should be obvious that either he is ignorant of how scientific results should be reported on or he is a liar. It has been pointed out to him that production of a figure like the Christy plot without documentation as to how it was produced proves nothing and would not survive peer review. Of course, Sir Lancelot has no interest in peer review as he has what the French refer to as an idee fixe, namely that Global warming is either a fiction or is so small as to be inconsequential. Then he goes cherry picking to find “evidence” to support his contention, much like folks like Casey Luskin go cherry picking to find “evidence” against evolution. Over at Scienceblogs, the Hoofnagles at the Denialism blog in their very first post described the mentality of deniers. Sir Lancelot fits the profile.

  182. Dunc says

    Yeah, I know, it just amuses me to play the “let’s pretend you’re arguing in good faith” game every now and then… Although much less than it used to. However, in this case, lancifer has presented such a large, obvious, and slow-moving target in the form of this ridiculous chart that I simply can’t resist taking a few shots. I’ll probably get bored soon…

  183. says

    “You, of course, just spew insults and personal invective. I hope, for your sake, it is only your persona here at FTB and does not reflect the way you preset yourself in person.”

    Actually, asshole, I pretty generally only spew invective and insults at lying sacks-o-shit that are deserving of the spew. I would hope for your sake that your professional life isn’t as devoid of honesty and intelligence as your comments here; I would hope that–if I gave a fuck about you, at all.

  184. says

    Well, hey, now, THIS thread is like the old FTB. A reasonable OP followed by a number of comments which include one that is complete bullshit by a frequent (and frequently full-o-shit) commenter. Said thread then devolves into name calling and hilarity ensues.

    Is this perhaps Ed’s version of the training that mammalian predators give their young; training that includes letting them learn how to use their “tools” to harvest a meal, by finishing off a weak or diseased member of the prey herd? Oh, the humanity!

  185. lancifer says

    Dunc,

    Christy’s graph shows a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979.

    What exactly do you dispute?

  186. lancifer says

    Dunc,

    Christy’s graph shows a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979.

    What exactly do you dispute?

    Also the IPCC FAR second order draft itself had a figure (1.4) that showed post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports, when compared with temperatures, until inexplicable (and unexplained) changes were made before final publication.

    Care to explain that?

  187. Johnny Vector says

    Also the IPCC FAR second order draft itself had a figure (1.4) that showed post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports, when compared with temperatures, until inexplicable (and unexplained) changes were made before final publication.

    Only if by “inexplicable” you mean “fixed an obvious mistake”. The draft was baselined to a single (particularly hot) year, which is wrong. Indeed, this mistake was pointed out by Tamino at the time it was first leaked. Between then and publication, the IPCC process also found and fixed the error. Pretty simple, really.

  188. Dunc says

    Christy’s graph shows a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979.

    What exactly do you dispute?

    OK, now we’re getting somewhere…

    I dispute 2 things:

    1. That those 73 models are representative of the range of IPCC projections. This can clearly be seen by comparing them with the readily available IPCC summaries.
    2. That “tropical bulk tropospheric temperature” is representative of global temperatures. It is well known that the observed warming is significantly more pronounced at higher latitudes, and significantly less pronounced in the tropics, so this is an obvious act of cherry-picking.

    Still, at least you’re now being honest about what the chart is – it’s a cherry-picked subset of model projections compared to a cherry-picked subset of temperature data, and therefore completely worthless.

    I’m done with you now.

  189. colnago80 says

    Re Johnny Vector @ #208

    The draft was baselined to a single (particularly hot) year, which is wrong.

    The deniers like Sir Lancelot always point to 1998 which was an outlier caused by an unusually strong El Nino and claim that temperature increases since then are small. cherry picking indeed.

  190. says

    You know, when you stop to think about it, you come to realize that AGW deniers aren’t JUST KKKristianist nitwits. They’re are a fair number of people who think that getting rid of allathem sortabrowns that are sitting on our oil, gas and other mineral and fossil fuel wealth is a very good idea. After all, why go to the expense of killing them when you can let GOD do it for you with drought and enervating heat. Win-Win.

  191. Michael Heath says

    colnago80,

    When it comes to understanding global warming trends, I highly recommend using graphs that contains all the major observations. “Graphs” in the plural since we should also always consider ocean temp. trends, not just air temps trends. IIRC most of the increased heat from global warming is being sequestered in the ocean.

    One way denialist lancifer denies these trends is to cherry-pick data from a fellow denialist where it’s known by actual climate scientists the data set is problematic; e.g, a couple of months ago his citing a graph from some guy on the Internet who created a graph from HADCRUT3 data; where we know that data set is not sufficiently representative to capture regions where warming is occurring more quickly, such as the Arctic. We should be better than this by pointing to graphs for air and separately, the ocean, in order to reveal all the trended observations reported by credible scientific organizations vs. lancifers’ guys on the Internet or known quacks (e.g., Christy).

    When comparing our warming trends to paleoclimatic trends, we’re racing towards changes that caused mass extinctions previously at far slower rates. This is one of those pesky facts lancifer denies while absurdly asserting up-thread he’s not a denialist when in fact there’s not a bigger denialist in this forum than him, with no close seconds. In fact the only bigger type of denialist-type I used to are those that claim CO2 is a benign gas and therefore the changes we’re seeing our not problematic but slightly beneficial since plants breathe CO2. Well, then lancifer dived in with a slightly less ludicrous denialist argument that increased CO2 would increase biomass (where he then did a Gish Gallop by pointing to a confusionists’ rice experiments which never actually validated his claim).

  192. colnago80 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #214

    The graph, the link to which I posted, has been posted on a number of blogs, including Phil Plait’s. I believe that Jerry Coyne, Chris Mooney, and PZ Myers may have posted links to it also in the past. Of course, Sir Lancelot could legitimately claim that I supplied no link to a document describing how it was arrived at, just as I claimed he supplied no link to a similar document for the graph whose link he posted. A Google search indicates that the graph I posted came from the following link:

    http://goo.gl/CGgYaY

  193. Michael Heath says

    I know the graph, I’m in NOAA’s site all the time. So a great big whoosh on your part. The point was and remains, put graphs out there that are fully representative of temp trends for planet earth.

  194. colnago80 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #216

    Here’s a link to the enlargement of the figure from the NASA site. The most noteworthy observation to be made, IMHO, is how far the 1998 result sticks out. It is obviously an outlier caused by an unusually strong El Nino as explained by Chris Mooney and, if it were left out of the graph, the resulting 1 year and 5 year averages would look even worse. By the way, the NASA report indicates that the graph includes both land and sea temperatures.

    Phil Plait posts an amusing blog post on the subject of the polar vortex and the response from clowns like Donal Trump, Rush Limbaugh, and the fucktards on the Fascist News Channel. However, the denialists, as per usual, are out in force in the talkbacks. This from a putz calling himself Bernardo Stevens: Actually, there has been zero temp increase worldwide since 1998. I’m sure the writer knows this. I wish these clowns would get some new material.

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/418335main_land-ocean-full.jpg

    http://goo.gl/LB6Ir2

  195. lancifer says

    Ar what point are you reality “deniers” going to admit that Climate-meggedon isn’t coming?

  196. Johnny Vector says

    OK Heath you want GISTemp?

    You got it.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AR4_HowsItDoing.png

    Oops, the models are still more than two sigmas higher than reality.

    That’s not a model, that’s a model convolved with an emissions scenario (A1B). Since AR4, emissions most closely match scenario A2. So why are you showing us the comparison between reality and a scenario we already know didn’t happen? Please stop derailing the conversation with irrelevancies. We showed you the actual projections using the closest emissions scenario to reality, and that the measurements are indeed consistent.

  197. lancifer says

    Johnny Vector,

    That’s not a model, that’s a model convolved with an emissions scenario (A1B). Since AR4, emissions most closely match scenario A2. So why are you showing us the comparison between reality and a scenario we already know didn’t happen?

    Bullshit! CO2 emissions have exceeded A2 levels and are well within the A1 levels.

  198. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    OK Heath you want GISTemp?
    You got it.
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AR4_HowsItDoing.png
    Oops, the models are still more than two sigmas higher than reality.
    Ar what point are you reality “deniers” going to admit that Climate-meggedon isn’t coming?

    Boy, you’re really down the rabbit hole now, claiming that credible climate scientists are the real deniers. That’s some massive projection there.

    You’ve already been caught in this very thread using bad data. Now you link to a graph from some anonymous blogger? http://rankexploits.com/musings/

    I suggest citing analyses from, oh I don’t know; how about actual credible scientists and science organizations rather than anonymous bloggers and known quacks.

    And then the period you present is clearly cherry-picked. Anyone who understands climate physics, which you repeatedly demonstrate you don’t nor even the scientific method from a remedial level, knows we require a longer period to understand climatic trends given the noise inherent in short-term trends.

    Here’s the graph reporting land-ocean surface air temps in the AR5; replicated here by Stefan Rahmstorf where he also explains the near-term temp. trend within a more meaningful period: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/. I suggest focusing on the decadal averages from three different observation sources and then on Rahmstorf’s explanations.

    My history with you is that you are incapable of reading what climate scientists have to say unless it feeds your desired version that you want to believe to defend your political ideology. Stefan Rahmstorf is an actual climatologist and one of the lead IPCC authors. So my confidence approaches zero you’ll actually read this post and comprehend it. Of course you should seek to validate his analysis and the cites he uses, but again, I suggest doing so by looking at competing independent sources that are also credible.

    My post here is not a response to your argument the model predictions are off relative to actual observations. That’s because you provide no trustworthy source for this analysis or even a credible scientist providing an elaborative analysis of the data as I do in this post.

    Figure 5 in my above link, also replicated from AR5, you know – the latest scientific consensus publication, appears to falsify your graph that you presented without any commentary by an actual scientist.

  199. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    Ar what point are you reality “deniers” going to admit that Climate-meggedon isn’t coming?

    Right, lancifer and his anonymous blogger @ 220 are the truth-tellers, whereas actual practicing climate scientists who represent the consensus view that lancifer denies are the real denialists. Because he’s a supposed scientist and is far smarter than all those actual climate scientists. And again with the defamation of climate scientists and scientists in general. Just can’t help yourself can you?

    I’ve got an email into Ed to move a detailed comment post out of moderation citing consensus AR5-reported observations and an analysis by an actual practicing climate scientist that refutes lancifer and his anonymous blogger’s claims. Wow, relying on an actual, relevant, and credible scientist to explain consensus observations and analysis – what a novel idea!

    I inadvertently used three links where I thought my post contained only two.

    Here’s my source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/. Figures 1 and 5 are particularly relevant here. If lancifer demonstrated an ability to actually read, comprehend, and consider what actual climate scientists report that’s inconvenient to his political ideology, one wouldn’t need to post a detailed rebuttal.

  200. Johnny Vector says

    Lancifer:

    CO2 emissions have exceeded A2 levels and are well within the A1 levels.

    Did you have a citation for that? Here’s mine says you’re wrong.

  201. colnago80 says

    I really like the way Sir Lancelot moves the goal posts around. He links to an undocumented figure which shows what purports to be a line representing measured temperatures. Another figure which is documented in a report out of NASA is linked to by Heath and myself which show a temperature line that is at variance with the one Sir Lancelot posted. Instead of commenting on the discrepancy, he posts a link to another undocumented figure. It should be quite obvious by this time that Sir Lancelot’s position has nothing to do with the facts but is a product of his libertarian ideology which opposes government intervention in the private sector. Not surprising considering that government intervention will be required to prevent the consequences of increased global temperatures. I would opine that it is a sad commentary on the American educational system that Sir Lancelot teaches physics as a reputable university, except that my PhD thesis adviser who rejected the theory of evolution also taught physics at a reputable university and was a finalist in this years Nobel Prize in physics festivities for his contributions to the Higgs boson theory. Well even Nobel Prize winning scientists can believe in nonsense, vis Brian Josephson, a believer in cold fusion, ESP, and PK.

Leave a Reply