In article ,
clumsy ******* writes:
Tim S wrote:

I said the Greenwash movement has become the new religion.

And religion often leads to bigotry.

And be damned anyone who would dare to choose not to be part of the new
religion.

as its based on science its rather different from religion, your
grandchildren wont thank you for ignoring a perfectly clear set of
problems.

The science went out of the window a long time ago with
regards to the mainstream discussions you see in the media.
A fanatical religion is actually a very good description
of most of the coverage today, regrettably, as it stifles
the real science.

In this country, there seem to be fewer and fewer people who
even understand what science really is, never mind any actual
understanding of it. We seem to have fallen below critical mass
in that respect, so I don't think we'll hear any further reasoned
discussions in this country. That's likely to come in the
future from the emerging technology nations (India, possibly
China) who are now educating large numbers of students in
science and engineering to the high levels we used to many
decades back, as they pour out into the workplaces of those
nations and increasingly start influencing the views and
direction of large sectors of the world.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

The science went out of the window a long time ago with
regards to the mainstream discussions you see in the media.
A fanatical religion is actually a very good description
of most of the coverage today, regrettably, as it stifles
the real science.

In this country, there seem to be fewer and fewer people who
even understand what science really is, never mind any actual
understanding of it. We seem to have fallen below critical mass
in that respect, so I don't think we'll hear any further reasoned
discussions in this country. That's likely to come in the
future from the emerging technology nations (India, possibly
China) who are now educating large numbers of students in
science and engineering to the high levels we used to many
decades back, as they pour out into the workplaces of those
nations and increasingly start influencing the views and
direction of large sectors of the world.


Well said, sir.

clumsy ******* wrote:
Tim S wrote:

I said the Greenwash movement has become the new religion.

And religion often leads to bigotry.

And be damned anyone who would dare to choose not to be part of the new
religion.

as its based on science its rather different from religion, your
grandchildren wont thank you for ignoring a perfectly clear set of
problems.

green **** is most definitely NOT based on science.


None of them appear able to do basic maths.


If you actually calculate the effect of CFL's allowing for all the
issues,the impact is negligible.

I have just got 50% more fuel consumption out of 10 quids worth of new
spark plugs. THAT is value.
CFL's are not.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:38:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

clumsy ******* wrote:
Tim S wrote:

I said the Greenwash movement has become the new religion.

And religion often leads to bigotry.

And be damned anyone who would dare to choose not to be part of the new
religion.

as its based on science its rather different from religion, your
grandchildren wont thank you for ignoring a perfectly clear set of
problems.

green **** is most definitely NOT based on science.


None of them appear able to do basic maths.


If you actually calculate the effect of CFL's allowing for all the
issues,the impact is negligible.

I have just got 50% more fuel consumption out of 10 quids worth of new
spark plugs. THAT is value.
CFL's are not.

Take 'em back - and ask for some that give you 50% less fuel
consumption.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

In article ,
Bob Mannix wrote:
what's sickly above bluish light? Its entirely a matter of what you
are used to.

Most take what we're used to in nature as a guide.

Indeed, incandescent - sun/fire (direct), LED - moon (borrowed)

But moonlight being reflected sunlight still has a good spectrum.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Bob Mannix wrote:
what's sickly above bluish light? Its entirely a matter of what you
are used to.

Most take what we're used to in nature as a guide.

Indeed, incandescent - sun/fire (direct), LED - moon (borrowed)

But moonlight being reflected sunlight still has a good spectrum.

The moon has the albido similar to a lump of coal, so I wouldn't
make too many assumptions about the quality of the reflected light,
as not much of it is reflected.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , chris French
writes

Is there a CFL in small bayonet fitting? We have rather a lot of wall
fittings which take two sbc candle lamps but I suppose it will be some
time before they get down to the 25Watt version that we use.


not at all, there is a much bigger variety available than is normally
stock in the high street/sheds

e.g. , from BLT, Ranging from 3w to 15W:

http://www.bltdirect.com/products.php?cat=15&filter=368

The mini-candles are pretty much the same length as an incandescent
candle I'd say, but fatter. They are also a bit more obvious in the
fitting because of the solid base I think.

Ah! I clearly need to shop more often and with my eyes open:-)

regards



--
Tim Lamb

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:38:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher


I have just got 50% more fuel consumption out of 10 quids worth of new
spark plugs. THAT is value.
CFL's are not.

Take 'em back - and ask for some that give you 50% less fuel
consumption.

Don't fret TNP frequently gets stuff reversed.
You should see his posts after he has been to the pub.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
clumsy ******* writes:
Tim S wrote:

I said the Greenwash movement has become the new religion.

And religion often leads to bigotry.

And be damned anyone who would dare to choose not to be part of the new
religion.

as its based on science its rather different from religion, your
grandchildren wont thank you for ignoring a perfectly clear set of
problems.

The science went out of the window a long time ago with
regards to the mainstream discussions you see in the media.
A fanatical religion is actually a very good description
of most of the coverage today, regrettably, as it stifles
the real science.

In this country, there seem to be fewer and fewer people who
even understand what science really is, never mind any actual
understanding of it. We seem to have fallen below critical mass
in that respect, so I don't think we'll hear any further reasoned
discussions in this country. That's likely to come in the
future from the emerging technology nations (India, possibly
China) who are now educating large numbers of students in
science and engineering to the high levels we used to many
decades back, as they pour out into the workplaces of those
nations and increasingly start influencing the views and
direction of large sectors of the world.

Oh... its gotten even worse:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237


NT

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes

He also mentioned that there's going to be a clamp down on frosted bulbs in
many forms coming along soon, with the argument being that a CFL can always
replace a frosted... That applies to any format, eg candle bulbs.

This is some proposed EU legislation, which outlaws anything other
than clear glass filament lamps from September IIRC. That will be
law, rather than the current voluntary agreement on 150W and 100W
lamps.

Is there a CFL in small bayonet fitting? We have rather a lot of wall
fittings which take two sbc candle lamps but I suppose it will be some
time before they get down to the 25Watt version that we use.

regards

IIRC screwfix, toolstation & tesco all do them


NT

In article ,
Huge writes:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:49:28 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In this country, there seem to be fewer and fewer people who even
understand what science really is, never mind any actual understanding
of it. We seem to have fallen below critical mass in that respect, so I
don't think we'll hear any further reasoned discussions in this country.
That's likely to come in the future from the emerging technology nations
(India, possibly China) who are now educating large numbers of students
in science and engineering to the high levels we used to many decades
back, as they pour out into the workplaces of those nations and
increasingly start influencing the views and direction of large sectors
of the world.

Interesting point made on the telly this morning; The inhabitants of
Third World countries always see education as the way out of poverty and
a Good Thing. The inhabitants of this country seem to have the opposite
view.

I popped out to the kitchen to make a cuppa just after lunch,
and there was someone on Radio 4 saying that MP's and journalists
really need to do some mandatory training on scientific and
statistical methods, which is something none of them have any
clue about nowadays, but something that is absolutely essential
for people in those positions.

Seemed particularly relevant to this discussion...

The context was the home secretary (IIRC) claining that knife crime
had fallen significantly since some initiative they introduced
in the summer, when in fact knife crime always falls significantly
in the winter, so there was no statistical significance in the fall
since the initiative was introduced. If she understood statistics
(or had spoken with someone who did), then she might not have made
such a blunder. And this is after the government set up a special
statistics unit earlier this year to vet any such claims that they
make due to a rapid decline in public acceptance of any figures
politicians give (she didn't use it).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 16 Jan 2009 11:59:09 GMT, Huge wrote:

Interesting point made on the telly this morning; The inhabitants of
Third World countries always see education as the way out of poverty and
a Good Thing. The inhabitants of this country seem to have the opposite
view.

The Welfare State has a lot to do with that. When I was off work recently
with a broken ankle the Incapacity Benefit and my PHI payments made sat at
home, doing nothing really rather pleasant. No worries about druming up
work or the phone not ringing to offer work.

Then I look at last year, it was a good year, I earnt a few thousand extra
compared to the previous year. Trouble is my Working Tax Credit dropped by
2/3rds, I ended up with just a few hundred extra in my pocket. Why did I
bother working harder?

I think the term is "poverty trap".

There does need to be a "safety net" of some sort like the Incapacity
Benefit when I couldn't work. But just handing out money without people
"earning" it in some way is just not working properly. Roll on the
introduction of community service work in exchange for benefits.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I popped out to the kitchen to make a cuppa just after lunch,
and there was someone on Radio 4 saying that MP's and journalists
really need to do some mandatory training on scientific and
statistical methods, which is something none of them have any
clue about nowadays, but something that is absolutely essential
for people in those positions.

It would help if the journalist or researcher etc did some basic fact
finding too.

--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:45:12 UTC, clumsy *******
wrote:

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

The science went out of the window a long time ago with
regards to the mainstream discussions you see in the media.
A fanatical religion is actually a very good description
of most of the coverage today, regrettably, as it stifles
the real science.

but the science is there, even if some rubbish gets written in the
press. "Fanatical religion" is OTT

There's lots of science there, but it doesn't all say the same thing.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Huge writes:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:49:28 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In this country, there seem to be fewer and fewer people who even
understand what science really is, never mind any actual understanding
of it. We seem to have fallen below critical mass in that respect, so I
don't think we'll hear any further reasoned discussions in this country.
That's likely to come in the future from the emerging technology nations
(India, possibly China) who are now educating large numbers of students
in science and engineering to the high levels we used to many decades
back, as they pour out into the workplaces of those nations and
increasingly start influencing the views and direction of large sectors
of the world.

Interesting point made on the telly this morning; The inhabitants of
Third World countries always see education as the way out of poverty and
a Good Thing. The inhabitants of this country seem to have the opposite
view.

I popped out to the kitchen to make a cuppa just after lunch,
and there was someone on Radio 4 saying that MP's and journalists
really need to do some mandatory training on scientific and
statistical methods, which is something none of them have any
clue about nowadays, but something that is absolutely essential
for people in those positions.

Seemed particularly relevant to this discussion...

The context was the home secretary (IIRC) claining that knife crime
had fallen significantly since some initiative they introduced
in the summer, when in fact knife crime always falls significantly
in the winter, so there was no statistical significance in the fall
since the initiative was introduced. If she understood statistics
(or had spoken with someone who did), then she might not have made
such a blunder. And this is after the government set up a special
statistics unit earlier this year to vet any such claims that they
make due to a rapid decline in public acceptance of any figures
politicians give (she didn't use it).

I don't think it had anything to do with understanding, or lack of it

It had everything to do with bending the truth to "prove" the point she
was trying to make

--
geoff

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:38:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

clumsy ******* wrote:
Tim S wrote:

I said the Greenwash movement has become the new religion.

And religion often leads to bigotry.

And be damned anyone who would dare to choose not to be part of the new
religion.
as its based on science its rather different from religion, your
grandchildren wont thank you for ignoring a perfectly clear set of
problems.
green **** is most definitely NOT based on science.


None of them appear able to do basic maths.


If you actually calculate the effect of CFL's allowing for all the
issues,the impact is negligible.

I have just got 50% more fuel consumption out of 10 quids worth of new
spark plugs. THAT is value.
CFL's are not.

Take 'em back - and ask for some that give you 50% less fuel
consumption.


:-)
s/fuel consumption/mpg/a
Regards,

clumsy ******* wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote:

but the science is there, even if some rubbish gets written in the
press. "Fanatical religion" is OTT
There's lots of science there, but it doesn't all say the same thing.

if it all said the same thing, I would be suspicious. As it is, over
the last few years of debate, most have accepted its correct, except
for Bush/oil sponsored people of course.
There are still lots of members of the public, who never dream of
arguing with scientific opinion elsewhere, who now suddenly start
questioning this science because its conclusions are inconvenient.
When New Scientist starts saying its all "green****" I will start to
listen, but for now its yesterdays argument, however much arrogant
oafs like Huge try to laugh.

New scientist is a very poor magazine for science. Its is, like New
Socialist, essentially run for political purposes.


The articles are either written by hacks who don't understand what they
are reporting on, or written as populist scare stories.

New scientists are firmly in the green**** camp already.

Surprisingly FOE seem to be half sane.

whisky-dave wrote:

"clumsy *******" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:

The so called freak events have been happening for centuries and there is
little evidence to suggest anything has changed other than the population
density.

i hear meerologists saying these things are up, they are pros, why
should I disbelieve it.

Becase a lot of areas that were flooded in the past few years are areas
where flooding has occured in the past[1], but they have still build new
properties on them

Having street names like "water lane" might be a bit of a clue.

as I assume the land was cheap to purchase.
Most of teh TV coverage seems to show new properties that have been
flooded not old ones.

Maybe the reason for these areas not having old buildings on them is that
when people previously tried to build there nothing stayed up long, due to
flooding

Andy Champ wrote:

6. They look ugly. Some light fittings are designed for particular
bulbs - we have candles in some, just for aesthetics and s** the lifetime.

In certain cases they simply won't physically fit. Even those lamps which
have a similar shape to incandescents are often longer/larger.

John Rumm wrote:

All my external lights are PIR switched anyway - so CFL would gain me
nothing really in that application. I want instant light in the cold and
dark, and I want it for 3 mins at a time - not something they are well
suited to.

IME CFLs often come with instructions not to be used in timer and PIR
controlled lights.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:08:02 +0000, Mark Evans wrote:

whisky-dave wrote:

"clumsy *******" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:

The so called freak events have been happening for centuries and there
is little evidence to suggest anything has changed other than the
population density.

i hear meerologists saying these things are up, they are pros, why
should I disbelieve it.

Becase a lot of areas that were flooded in the past few years are areas
where flooding has occured in the past[1], but they have still build
new properties on them

Having street names like "water lane" might be a bit of a clue.

Flood Street around here, people are still surprised when it does.

In article ,
Mark Evans writes:
Andy Champ wrote:

6. They look ugly. Some light fittings are designed for particular
bulbs - we have candles in some, just for aesthetics and s** the lifetime.

In certain cases they simply won't physically fit. Even those lamps which
have a similar shape to incandescents are often longer/larger.

At the moment, CFL's larger than 11W (40W real equivalent) will
always be larger than their filament equivalents. Technology is
slowly allowing CFL's to be made smaller, and that cross-over
point is slowly increasing. Note however that generally, the
smaller the CFL, the less efficient due to increase in the
self-shadowing of the tube. Most efficient ones tend to be
spirals with the spiral as open/stretched as possible (and no
outer bulb, except where used in exposed cold/draftly locations).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The science went out of the window a long time ago with
regards to the mainstream discussions you see in the media.

Isn't that just what happens when the mainstream media tries to report science?
Nothing to do with what the science is about IMO.

-- Jason

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The context was the home secretary (IIRC) claining that knife crime
had fallen significantly since some initiative they introduced
in the summer, when in fact knife crime always falls significantly
in the winter, so there was no statistical significance in the fall
since the initiative was introduced. If she understood statistics
(or had spoken with someone who did), then she might not have made
such a blunder. And this is after the government set up a special
statistics unit earlier this year to vet any such claims that they
make due to a rapid decline in public acceptance of any figures
politicians give (she didn't use it).


Blunder? You think it was an accident? You think most of the population will
actually question the statistic or have the slightest clue why it is wrong?

This is politics in action.

clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

New scientist is a very poor magazine for science. Its is, like New
Socialist, essentially run for political purposes.

really.
Yes, really.

e.g.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...eco_economics/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

New scientist is a very poor magazine for science. Its is, like New
Socialist, essentially run for political purposes.

really.
Yes, really.

e.g.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...eco_economics/

That is a poorly argued case for saying the NS is a poor magazine for
science (your first claim) there is no support or substance in your view
that it is "essentially run for political purposes".

The tenor of the register article is that, because it is *possible* to have
growth without consuming more resources, the NS are stupid for saying the
mantra of "more growth is better" for saying growth consumes resources. In
the real world, the observation that economic growth consumes resources is
clearly true an the register article is disingenuous.

If you wish to assert that the NS is too general and populist to be regarded
as a serious scientific journal, that's fine!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

New scientist is a very poor magazine for science. Its is, like New
Socialist, essentially run for political purposes.
really.

Yes, really.

and Nature, and the rest of the scientific community....
No, Nature is actually fairly exacting in it standards.

Bob Mannix wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

New scientist is a very poor magazine for science. Its is, like New
Socialist, essentially run for political purposes.
really.
Yes, really.

e.g.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...eco_economics/

That is a poorly argued case for saying the NS is a poor magazine for
science (your first claim) there is no support or substance in your view
that it is "essentially run for political purposes".

The tenor of the register article is that, because it is *possible* to have
growth without consuming more resources, the NS are stupid for saying the
mantra of "more growth is better" for saying growth consumes resources. In
the real world, the observation that economic growth consumes resources is
clearly true an the register article is disingenuous.

If you wish to assert that the NS is too general and populist to be regarded
as a serious scientific journal, that's fine!



Well I thought that is what i had asserted. Its populist, inaccurate,
not peer reviewed, and politically biased.

In short its a tabloid with an agenda, that restricts itself to the
'science and technology' pages that in a normal tabloid are buried in
the back.

Its target market are people who want to feel they understand science
when they don't. And dislike it and mistrust it because they don't.

clumsy ******* wrote:
"Bob Mannix" wrote:

The tenor of the register article is that, because it is *possible* to have
growth without consuming more resources, the NS are stupid for saying the
mantra of "more growth is better" for saying growth consumes resources. In
the real world, the observation that economic growth consumes resources is
clearly true an the register article is disingenuous.

people just don't want to hear that population and material wealth
cannot just go on growing, Its certainly problematic to halt either,
given the way our economy works, but that doesn't mean we should bury
our heads in the sand.

If you wish to assert that the NS is too general and populist to be regarded
as a serious scientific journal, that's fine!

it seems to me a sensible source of science news for the average
person, given the job ads scientists certainly read it.

That's all most of them read it FOR.

Or just to keep vaguely up with whats happening elsewhere..every decent
scientist I have come across has always said 'well they are OK on this
other stuff, but they are wrong on *my* subject'

Ho hum.

I occasionally buy it, skim the interesting article, and if its
sufficiently interesting go to the sources. They usually say something
completely different.

clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

and Nature, and the rest of the scientific community....

No, Nature is actually fairly exacting in it standards.

they don't seem to think climate change isn't happening.

Indeed. Nor do I .

New scientist is for wannabe scientists to be reinforced in their
opinions. Thats what sells pulp fiction...;-)

the market for actual facts and well researched discussions, is very small.

clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its target market are people who want to feel they understand science
when they don't. And dislike it and mistrust it because they don't.

with a target market like that you wouldn't last a week, as for
"tabloid" have you read a tabloid?

Not for a couple of years, no.

But I don't suppose you've ever read a quality broadsheet. I don't think
there i one left. FT maybe, but very narrow in its focus.

New scientist=Guardian science pages.

Appeals to the chattering classes.

clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not for a couple of years, no.

But I don't suppose you've ever read a quality broadsheet.

oh dear.

I don't think
there i one left. FT maybe, but very narrow in its focus.

I read the FT every day. The Times has certainly gone way downhill, I
dropped it years ago. The Torygraph seems to just pander to its every
older and more reactionary tory readers but I read my mother in laws,
the Gruniad and Observer can have interesting ideas sometimes,
although its a while since I bought either.

Sadly, seem to be wandering the same route. Just have the FT at the w/e
these days. Don't find the Times of much interest. I take the Torygraph each
day as much for amusement as news. The Sunday edition is full of fun -
provided you recognise it. Took the Gruniad for probably 2 decades by which
I mean 15 to 20 years but now do not find much to inform me. Observer - well
when did I last read that? Possibly when sailing with freinds within the
last 2 years but cannot recall anything that attracts me these days.

Most of my source of news and reviews comes from the internet - a lot, I
have to say from the BBC, but also from overseas sites.

In article ,
clumsy ******* wrote:
i limit myself to its non political content, the way they run with
Camerons spin line of "Browns recession" - ummm, that started in the
US and had its most drastic effect so far in Iceland - as an insult to
the intelligence.

Indeed. If ever there was a case of a worldwide recession, it's this. But
I'd say the average floating voter will laugh at Cameron's rubbish. Which
might come back to haunt him come the next election if things have
improved by then.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16 Jan 2009 09:58:53 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

This is some proposed EU legislation, which outlaws anything other
than clear glass filament lamps from September IIRC. That will be
law, rather than the current voluntary agreement on 150W and 100W
lamps.

Asda again have 100W pearl BC bulbs on sale at £1·50 for six. It's
good to see that not all retailers are behaving like sheep... :-)

Not that I frequent Asda all that much, but their 24 hr opening is
handy for late-night vodka.

I'm still adding to my stockpile (bulbs, not vodka!).

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On 16 Jan 2009 09:58:53 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

This is some proposed EU legislation, which outlaws anything other
than clear glass filament lamps from September IIRC. That will be
law, rather than the current voluntary agreement on 150W and 100W
lamps.

Asda again have 100W pearl BC bulbs on sale at £1·50 for six. It's
good to see that not all retailers are behaving like sheep... :-)

Not that I frequent Asda all that much, but their 24 hr opening is
handy for late-night vodka.

I'm still adding to my stockpile (bulbs, not vodka!).

I appreciate the comment though I have been a convert for many years. Early
80s when a weighty Philips was the cost of a Vottle of Bodka today!

Wanders away muttering Bah, bah.