03-09-2014 04:01 PM
175 ... 567
tools
  1. JHBThree's Avatar
    I believe that most of this "climate change " talk is motivated by money.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    Yes. Polluters don't want to pony up for the damage they're doing to the planet. You have that part exactly right.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    nolittdroid likes this.
    03-07-2014 10:57 PM
  2. toober's Avatar
    Despite the risks associated with them breaking, CFLs are more efficient (read: use less electricity provided by coal power plants) and last longer (read: less waste) than incandescent bulbs. They are better for the environment and more environmentally friendly.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    They also cost 10 times as much and put out the crappiest light since florescent lights in office buildings. I'm all for saving money and helping out the environment, but these things are ruining my eyes.
    03-07-2014 11:27 PM
  3. GadgetGator's Avatar
    A level that has not occurred before.
    I'd be happy to answer your questions, but first you need to answer one I asked you..... Wait and see......for what exactly??? A level that has not occurred before? Every single day is a level that has not occurred before. Every single day are more humans then ever before, and more pollution than ever before. So what is it that you are waiting for precisely??? It's still unclear. By your own words, we are already there. With each passing day.
    03-07-2014 11:43 PM
  4. JHBThree's Avatar
    They also cost 10 times as much and put out the crappiest light since florescent lights in office buildings. I'm all for saving money and helping out the environment, but these things are ruining my eyes.
    They do not cost 10 times as much. Their light is not any different than incandescent bulbs once they're warmed up.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 11:48 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    They do not cost 10 times as much. Their light is not any different than incandescent bulbs once they're warmed up.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    Compared to incandescent's before going the way of the dinosaur causing their prices to spike, CFL's do cost that much more. Even after coming down in price. That being said, I once lived in an apartment complex that had some weird electrical anomaly that caused incandescent's to blow in as little as a month. CFL's didn't seem to be affected, and were quite worth the money in that case. The light is negligible with all the whiteness options available in both traditional and CFL. A digital camera might give different results between the two types of light (I've seen some with various artificial lighting settings such as incandescent and fluorescent). Thankfully LED's are also coming way down in price, have better, true, white, and some have different color change options. Plus they are even more energy efficient, durable IMHO and longer lasting than CFL's. I'm thinking of converting to them when time to replace lights.
    03-08-2014 12:14 AM
  6. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    The only problem with the "at least we are doing something" usually creates more problems than we began with. Look at the ct gun laws. The politicians are admitting that the law wouldn't have saved the kids from sandy hook and may not prevent another shooting, but at least we tried. Now, I know this isnt the forum to debate guns but this example should **** off everyone. Our society has became lazy. If we have a problem, we try to throw crap at it to see what sticks instead of trying to solve a problem. Then, common, decent, hard working people get another law against them and another freedom taken away. Why shut down businesses because we "think" they are hurting something when we can't prove they are. When a business goes under it won't hurt the owner like the people that work for the company.

    Don't get me wrong, if we can prove that something is bad for the environment, let's do something about it. Lets try to solve the problem not add gas to a fire. Be mad at all politicians, no matter the party, that wants to pass a law just to say "at least we tried" instead of trying to solve a problem.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-08-2014 12:22 AM
  7. pappy53's Avatar
    Their light is not any different than incandescent bulbs once they're warmed up.
    That is not true, IMO.
    03-08-2014 01:13 AM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    They do not cost 10 times as much. Their light is not any different than incandescent bulbs once they're warmed up.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    They take a few minutes and they are a pain in the ....

    And, from what I've read, they are only more efficient if you plan to leave a light on all of the time.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-08-2014 01:51 AM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    This is another topic that I think the right wing has done a masterful job at getting their minions behind. The evidence of industry poisoning our planet is there. Our food supply is tainted, our water supply is tainted, our environment is tainted. But, because it would affect (See how I used "affect" correctly there? ) a company's bottom line, the right wing has to spin the story so that their lobbyists get watered down regulations that allows them to continue to rape our land in order to maintain profitability.

    What's sad is the OP's title insists that Apple has its sheep, but fails to realize that they're also being led around like sheep. I don't see how anyone old enough can see that there is something going on with our climate. When I was a kid, I remember being able to spend all day outside playing without having to worry about applying SPF gazillion to avoid getting sunburned. I remember not hearing "ozone days". I even remember football practice never being cancelled because it was "too hot". I guess if you're too young to remember anything beyond 9/11 then it's understandable that you buy into the whole, "But Al Gore told me these cold days weren't going to ever happen again!" But, feel free to take the blinders off for a second and realize that it's not just about what the temperature is in ONE REGION. Kangaroos, Emus, Parrots Drop Dead as Australia Sizzles in Record-Breaking Heat Wave - International Business Times
    03-08-2014 06:21 AM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    If you want to see a significant drop in your electric bill, switch to LED lighting. I switched a lot of my fluorescent lighting to LED lighting a few year ago and I saw a significant drop in my electric bill.

    LED lighting hasn't dropped in price as much as fluorescent lighting yet, but the price continues to drop. I've seen whole subway stations in Europe that have switched to LED lighting.
    03-08-2014 07:05 AM
  11. Farish's Avatar
    They take a few minutes and they are a pain in the ....

    And, from what I've read, they are only more efficient if you plan to leave a light on all of the time.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    LED light bulbs are just more efficient, by 900 percent. It has nothing to do with longer.

    At 800 Lumens ( A 60 watt incandescent light bulb) LED uses 6-8 watts. That same efficiency is applied from the first second that passes.

    Also that LED light bulb generates 3.4 btus vs 85btus of the incandescent 60 watt light bulb.

    At 10c/KWH you save 26 dollars per year on a 12 hour per day cycle.

    Now on Amazon I see a 60 watt equivalent of a LED Light bulb at 10 dollars. Meaning at the figures I gave you, your break even point is 4 months.
    03-08-2014 08:22 AM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    That is not true, IMO.
    The color is different. Just like any other type of bulb (except maybe LED) you can choose different color based on temperature of the light. I personally look for the closest to daylight I can find. I've been happy with the "color of light" from incandescent and CFL equally. CFL is more efficient, though, so I go with those. LED does save quite a bit of money over time, but the initial investment is too high for me right now.
    03-08-2014 09:44 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Does anyone else notice the "strobe" effect of LED's? Like if you dart your eyes across one, you see multiple images of the bulb instead of a single streak of light? I know it's because the LED is cycling on and off very rapidly, but sometimes is distracting.
    troshs likes this.
    03-08-2014 10:58 PM
  14. JHBThree's Avatar
    That is not true, IMO.
    Well, your opinion is wrong.

    They take a few minutes and they are a pain in the ....

    And, from what I've read, they are only more efficient if you plan to leave a light on all of the time.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    They're more efficient all the time. But, part of the biggest reason for switching is because they last for so much longer.



    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-08-2014 11:23 PM
  15. JHBThree's Avatar
    LED light bulbs are just more efficient, by 900 percent. It has nothing to do with longer.

    At 800 Lumens ( A 60 watt incandescent light bulb) LED uses 6-8 watts. That same efficiency is applied from the first second that passes.

    Also that LED light bulb generates 3.4 btus vs 85btus of the incandescent 60 watt light bulb.

    At 10c/KWH you save 26 dollars per year on a 12 hour per day cycle.

    Now on Amazon I see a 60 watt equivalent of a LED Light bulb at 10 dollars. Meaning at the figures I gave you, your break even point is 4 months.
    LED lights are still crazy expensive. But, they're coming down fast. They also last for a crazy long time, so people have to change how they think about lighting. (Right now its 'I'm buying this thing that will burn out so it had better be cheap'. With LEDs they need to think of it more as a long term purchase that will last a long time)

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-08-2014 11:26 PM
  16. pappy53's Avatar
    Well, your opinion is wrong.
    So, anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong? You only speak facts? LOL!
    anon(464338) likes this.
    03-09-2014 03:43 AM
  17. Jerry Hildenbrand's Avatar
    Finally a discussion about light, and the science behind it.

    Too bad it's in the race baiting woman hating bible loving thanks Obama section. And the msnbc zealots gun grabbing Pelosi lovers, so as not to take sides.

    If anyone wants to break this out to the lounge, let me know.

    For the record, CFL can look exactly like tungsten lighting if someone was stupid enough to design them that way. They can cover the entire spectrum of visible light, at any color temperature, as well as the IR and UV.

    Politics and religion may be partially subjective and personal, but luminary science and vision is not.

    Back to bickering and being hateful.

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
    03-09-2014 04:54 AM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    Finally a discussion about light, and the science behind it.

    Too bad it's in the race baiting woman hating bible loving thanks Obama section. And the msnbc zealots gun grabbing Pelosi lovers, so as not to take sides.

    If anyone wants to break this out to the lounge, let me know.

    For the record, CFL can look exactly like tungsten lighting if someone was stupid enough to design them that way. They can cover the entire spectrum of visible light, at any color temperature, as well as the IR and UV.

    Politics and religion may be partially subjective and personal, but luminary science and vision is not.

    Back to bickering and being hateful.

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
    I'd love to take that part offline.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    03-09-2014 05:19 AM
  19. Timelessblur's Avatar
    They take a few minutes and they are a pain in the ....

    And, from what I've read, they are only more efficient if you plan to leave a light on all of the time.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    It is more like after 2 min the power saving pass standard.

    Basically CFL are not goodnight for say a closet as the light is rarely on for very long. Plus that type of power cycling kills them just as fast. Now for room lighting they win out.


    That being said I like CFL as I can put a 100 equivalent in a 40-60 Watt socket. I really like light. Leds are coming down in price and by far provide better light. I have absolutely few of them and really like them.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    03-09-2014 06:29 AM
  20. Litlprince2's Avatar
    I can find just as many studies and very smart people who say the opposite. To me, if you really think about the scope of area of atmosphere vs man made pollution, I don't see us making a lick of impact. We will never agree and not you nor I will EVER get proven right. But My view on this subject it not even about the specific points. It's the agenda of the left and the money making aspect of a phenomenon that they can not prove. Climate change, abortion and saving trees should take a back seat to.. Immigration, the budget and creating jobs. But dealing with these subjects apparently don't get the votes like scaring people.

    Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
    Actually to save the earth and our future... All of the things you listed should take a back seat to overall population control. The rest of our problems will solve them selves once we take care of this.. Even climate change..
    03-09-2014 06:52 AM
  21. anon(464338)'s Avatar
    Actually to save the earth and our future... All of the things you listed should take a back seat to overall population control. The rest of our problems will solve them selves once we take care of this.. Even climate change..
    And dealing with immigration has no effect on the population ?

    Posted via Android Central App
    03-09-2014 08:05 AM
  22. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    And dealing with immigration has no effect on the population ?

    Posted via Android Central App
    Umm.....let me try to explain this.

    Immigration has to do with where people are, not how many there are. Pollution and environmental effects aren't constrained by borders, therefor, where people are has no impact on this discussion at all.

    So no, immigration has no affect on the amount of people there are. Those people still exist.
    03-09-2014 02:55 PM
  23. anon(464338)'s Avatar
    Umm.....let me try to explain this.

    Immigration has to do with where people are, not how many there are. Pollution and environmental effects aren't constrained by borders, therefor, where people are has no impact on this discussion at all.

    So no, immigration has no affect on the amount of people there are. Those people still exist.
    Edit. Never mind. I don't want to get booted from AC.lol
    But I will say that I'm not sure why you don't think stopping people from coming into the country in droves, has no impact on future population.

    Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
    03-09-2014 03:40 PM
  24. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Edit. Never mind. I don't want to get booted from AC.lol
    But I will say that I'm not sure why you don't think stopping people from coming into the country in droves, has no impact on future population.

    Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
    I'm trying to figure out why you think the population of the US is the only population that matters. The people coming into the country obvious already exist, and being here won't magically prevent them from having children, right? They can do that no matter where they are.
    03-09-2014 03:59 PM
  25. NotJustAPhone's Avatar
    This thread has run its course. Closed.

    Sent from my Galaxy Note II
    03-09-2014 04:01 PM
175 ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Hello All.
    By Charles Ray1 in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 10:09 AM
  2. my wallpaper was distorted ?
    By preppystud in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 07:01 PM
  3. [APP][Free] Fitness App customizable for dieting and workout
    By 4Fitting in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 09:15 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD