Safe Speed Forums

DeltaF I can see you are awake. It's not called "the 4th Reich."
Its NWO New World Order which many of you will have heard your Prime Ministers
mention on numerous occasions.

_________________
Dave ~ Freeman on the Land
http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/
A paradigm shift in law and politics

Where do you live???

Where I live, background space heat is welcome most of the year and essential for about a quarter of it!

I am perfectly happy for incandescent light fittings to serve a "Dual purpose", especially since they;

1) Work with my dimmers (CFL's dont)
2) Work with automatic switching systems. (CFL's dont)
3) Come in (or at least used to) sensible power ratings (a 25 watt CFL in a 25 M^2 room with east facing windows might as well be a bottle of fireflies!)
4) Don't have a nasty habit of catching fire and filling the house with acrid burning plastic fumes (not to mention the possibility of burning the house down!) (CFL's do, the problem is that they are designed to be used with the Bulb above the socket and so are unsuitable for most traditional light fittings, the electronics overheats which, at best, significantly reduces life expectancy and, at worst, can result in fires)

I have to say that CFLs work great outside however. They take a while to get going but they last forever because of the cooler operating environment. My mum had one of the original phillips SL's as a porch light that must have lasted nearly 20 years, must have been getting on for 30,000 hrs!)

When I run out of 150W GLS bulbs (I've still got a few left) I am going to have to go to the expence of replacing my light fittings with GU10 halogens or (if I can find something suitable for indoors) Linear halogens.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not universally knocking CFL's. Its just that they are not the "One size fits all" solution that The EUSSR/government ban implies they are (bit like speed limits really). we should be given the choice. I am happy to use CFL's in table lamps and outdoor lamps (which I do) . I just want to be able to continue to use GLS in envroments where I wish to use dimmers or automatic swiching systems (like the movement sensor in my hallway, stairwell) or really bright lighting. (A dimmable, 60-70watt CFL compatible with automatic switching suitable would be an improvement as would a rapid start CFL ,also suitable for automatic switching, and for multiple operational cycles of not more than 5 mins at a time might be a good alternative. But I cant see either happening any time soon, at least not at a sensible price!

So I will keep my incandescents for now!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

CFL bulbs contain mercury, just as your thoughtful government provides
vaccinations containing mercury.

I use and have a stock of old bulbs.

_________________
Dave ~ Freeman on the Land
http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/
A paradigm shift in law and politics

Really :
A CFL contains 5 mg of mercury as vapour.
A thimerosal-containing vaccine contains 0.5 mcg/ml (approx 25 mcg/dose)
Not all vaccines contain thimerosal: single-dose vaccines do not nor do various multi-dose applicators (MMR, polio, bcg etc)
Most mercury in infants comes from the mother (methylmercury) who probably absorbs it from fish (av 23 mcg mercury per 250 g of fish) (from the sea)
Take your pick.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

A little off topic but I saw on the news the other night that a lady had got mercury poisoning as she had eaten too many fish ! Apparently she had eaten so much fish that the mercury had built up and totally overloaded her body ! I was quite surprised.
For further reading on this go here, here, here and here.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Just lies: She got it from all the vaccinations she had and from eating cfl.
Mercury only occurs in vaccines and lights.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I remember someone telling me ages ago that shellfish are bad in this regard. (Anything wot lives deep in the ocean).

Looking at this chart I see there are concentrations of mercury, given in PPM, but I confess I don't know how deleterious this is to us, if at all?

Unfortunately they mention everything except prawns, one of my favourites. Maybe this is why I've put so much weight on in recent years, it's not fat I'm just full of mercury!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

These emails are interesting.
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: thanks and one question
Date: Mon Oct 5 10:55:36 2009
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>

Gavin, Mike,
Thanks for this!
I assume you are both aware of this prat - Neil Craig, see below. Keith won't be
responding.
Checking facts doesn't seem important these days. As CA threads aren't publications this
is difficult for non scientists.
I am going further over one email I got at the weekend - see also below. Typical of Sonia
- although she now seems to only be an emeritus reader!
Cheers
Phil
Return-path: <CrgN143@aol.com>
From: CrgN143@aol.com
Full-name: CrgN143
Message-ID: <d03.64b01875.37f87aa4@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:00:04 EDT
Subject: Tree rings - accusation that you were solely responsible.
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1254564004"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5045
Professor Briffa,
I have written a couple of blogs on the current report by Steve
McIntyre that the data used by Mann to "prove" the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
following day's
[1]http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-warming-proven-deliberate-fraud.html
.

As a result I have received this email from somebody I am not aquainted with throwing
the entire blame on you. This seems improbable to me & possibly an alarmist damage
limitation exercise. If you wish to comment I would be happy for you to do so.

"Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
Cheers
Avisame"

I have posted this as an update with my reply:

"My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper,
chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming
trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that
this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed
Mr Briffa to see. "

Neil Craig
You may be interested in my political blog
[2]http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/
We received this through our enquiries desk. I assume that you are aware of this person,
including those copied on the message.
If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process. This confidence has proven to be well placed.
Roger
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson <stephanie.ferguson@ukcip.org.uk>
Cc: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>, Patrick David Henderson
<pdhenderson18@googlemail.com>, Christopher Monckton <monckton@mail.com>
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of scientific
'fraud' by CRU and Met Office



Dear Stephanie

I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.

Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations made on to the
relevant people.

It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy policy debate. I know several
of the people involved personally and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour
as scientists, though I am also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy
positions.

I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross
McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business School and who is fully informed about
the relevant issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.

Best wishes

Sonja B-C

Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science ([3]www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340


TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy

a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN

" Jennifer Marohasy <jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>

Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
< <[4]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists->
[5]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-
must-explain-or-resign/>

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/20 ... fraud.html
2. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/
3. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/
4. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/0 ... scientists
5. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/0 ... scientists


----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@stanford.edu <[4]mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>>

To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@stanford.edu <[6]mailto:shs@stanford.edu>>

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics' views.

[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha

_________________
nigel_bytes

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Excellent link - thank you!

mb

A wealth of info here.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/newsepp.html

Take a look at this finding..... http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/NIPCC_Findings.pdf

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Fluorescent lighting can be a very good, high quality (better than incandescent and fully dimmable) light source. The problem with CFL's is that they're designed to retro fit applications designed around incandescent light sources and suffer from aesthetic, sizing and pricing requirements.

LED technology is coming of age and looks set to supercede most other forms of light, although it's image is suffering from most of the rubbish currently on the market.

GU10's are horrible things BTW. I rip them out and fit 12v lighting quite frequently.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Online poll.

http://timesnews.typepad.com/news/2009/ ... hagen.html

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

The guys talks common sense to begin with, but I took issue with part 2: 9:00 onwards.

"The case for AGW [paraphrasing to remove emotive nonsense] which is built in to all the computer models ... that as the world warms in response to the extra CO2 (or for any other reason) then less outgoing radiation will escape into space."

Is it me or did this guy make an extraordinarily bad assumption?

Climate models need not factor in a reduction of outgoing radiation for the planet to be warmer, elementary physics (as he puts it) dictates that scenario cannot be - there's no equilibrium in the system.
OUT == IN ( - conversion/storage + conversion/emission).

An increased resistance of a thermal barrier (the increased CO2 in the atmosphere) will result with a higher temperature at the source (the planet surface) to achieve the same outgoing radiation.
(The real issue is the amount of rise and the feedbacks involved.)

So is this assumption really built into the climate models? I don't believe this guy knows the first thing about thermodynamics, or potentials/resistance (well he used to be a politician) or even climate models, but if what he says is true then I will happily write off all related AGW projections right now!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I think this explains it better. Heck even i can grasp it.

http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-mon ... onference/

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Thanks for that.
What I said earlier was correct, but in itself not immediately irrelevant.

If the planet is warming (not warmer) which the IPCC are claiming, then there must be a radiative imbalance for that potential to be built up.
The way Monckton presented his main question is highly confusing:
"If global mean surface temperature increases, will radiation escaping from Earth to space…"
it will of course increase if all else remains equal, but it must have diminished/declined for the rise to occur in the first place (and then it can level out, which is where my earlier post becomes relevant), and that’s the problem: not all remained equal (the rising CO2 levels).

So does more outgoing radiation mean the planet is cooling, or that it is warming? The answer is far from straightforward.


It gets worse. The change/direction of radiated emission is utterly meaningless without knowledge of what's coming in; he never shows this. We need to know the net gain - the radiative imbalance, not the absolute emission.

All in all, he proved it’s all a whole load of nothing (from both sides), but at least this has further enlightened me.

After all that, it still doesn’t mean that the said characteristic was “built into” the models (as per my previous post). I’m afraid he’ll need to prove his claim otherwise it really is nothing more than a bad assumption.




However,

I’ve very glad Monckton is being so specific and strong with his statements, outright accusing those involved in climategate of lying and fraud. Ordinarily, such accusations are far too damaging to simply be ignored. If the modellers cited have any decency at all then they will fight Monckton in court on charges of libel or deformation, for the planet’s sake as well as their own. If they don’t, well I’ll let you read into that!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The climate alarmists do not have to prove anything.
They already know they are right.
And the weight of politics, big business and the press (big-biz again) are firmly behind the alarmists.
As I have said, many times.
If you want to know the truth FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL.
The amount of MONEY to be made, extracted etc, from this scam is so mind-boggling that people just cannot comprehend the scale.
It is the Ponzi-scheme of all time....
We now have "climateologists" telling phd's that they do not know science.
Let me let you into a secret: CO2 (the 5% we put there) influences the climate by way of "The Unknown Forcing Effect"
They know this effect MUST exist because it is the only way to explain how the 5% that HS puts into the air can cause the temperature rise.
The alternative viewpoint is ignored (that the 5% causes no rise) because THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Some points of your post are valid, but others can be turned around quite easily:


I give as well as take…


Yes we know that’s tripe, otherwise our planet would have had to melt when the CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher than today, instead of having experiencing the repeated ice ages that it did.


Another thought: dinosaurs! The larger they are, the harder it is for them to survive.

Since being 'wiped out 65M years ago', we’ve not seen any such large animal evolve into existence. We know the CO2 levels have been decreasing with time. Could it be that the reduction CO2 have resulted with less plant life to feed on - does that indicate the environment is now less able to sustain such creatures? Could that reduction of CO2 be the actual driving force for the decline of them, instead of that meteor impact?
Either way, could that at least suggest that more CO2 is actually good for the eco system?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That is nonsense. If AGW were as dangerous as speculated and catastrophe as imminent as some fear then the only measure which could save us would be to abandon capitalism and replace it with a command economy in which all activity would be closely regulated for its CO2 emission. No modern government could tolerate that which is why little or no progress has been made or will be made.at Copenhagan.

And it is self evident that the biggest business of all, petro-chemicals, would be suffer immense losses if we stopped burning fossil fuels. Indeed all business would suffer great losses if peoples consumption fell to the level necessary to contain CO2 emission tio the extent demanded by the more alarmist.

And the popular press will always trim its sails to please the majority of its readers.

There are strong arguments for and against AGW but to suggest that it is a government scam is paranoia of the worstorder.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

That it true, but that won't happen. What is happening is skyrocketing taxation of fossil fuels, not rationing of it.
Also, the military machines (of the world) aren't going 'low carbon' anytime soon.


Not all businesses will suffer. Anything related to CO2 cap-and-trade and sequestration will boom.


WMDs!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign