Alan White wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 11:53:13 -0700, "Jack )"
wrote:

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Here's a simple one:-

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...e=1&doy=14 m3


On the other hand, try the manual that came with the kit. Most show the power
consumption for when an item is in use, and on standby.
My network printer, for example, uses 8w on standby if memory serves.

If everything was 8 watts, and I left all my audio/video stuff on standby, that
would be close on 100w ... a significant saving to be had there then.

--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On Mar 13, 11:33 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
writes

In addition the Marxists have got in on the act, and you can never
trust that lot they are incapable of telling the truth. This is a
primary reason for the whole scenario becoming over-hyped.

Among the comments I've seen made about the programme is one alleging
that the director of the program is a Marxist.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Du...&hl=en&num=100
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley



Good point but that is the exception to the rule. There is a whole
gamut of Marxist groups in the UK and some are far more radical than
others. Durkin's lot the RCP, really see that those Marxist that are
prepared to work within capitalist democracy as revisionist! They all
though have one common denominator that being they are primarily the
domain of the middle-classes and generally white.

It is odd however that the Revolutionary Communist Party is supportive
of the USA in around about way. It would seem that Durkin's angle is
this: he feels that the developing third world countries will be
doomed to further poverty with rising fossil fuel costs and carbon
restrictions-and he is right. However the majority of the left are all
avid environmentalist who are only too willing to blame the USA ,
England and the west in general, not forgetting Israel which although
middle east is really seen as the west.

You know the Secretary for state for the environment David Milliband
is the son of the late Marxist Theoretician Ralph Milliband.

So I really do believe my post still stands.

"Signal" wrote in message
...


I accept that the concept of keeping TV's in standby mode to add
warmth to your home is bananas.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

No.No.No.No.No.

No. I never said anything that implied that you should leave appliances on
standby for the heating benefits it provides.

I was only helping you understand the physical principal at hand. You denied
that electronic circuits are efficient at generating heat. I told you that
essentially that is all they do!

All this "every little bit helps" mentality is bananas. It would help to
look at the big picture. Even if CO2 does prove to be our nemesis, fiddling
with a tiny fraction of a percent of the global production is just a
bleeding heart knee jerk.

Paulus

wrote:
On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the
press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack


I have a 5 year old Sony TV wiith a quoted standby power usage of 0.5w.
Normally I do turn it off however if it is not going to be in use.

Items such as Cable.ADSL modems and NAT routers which are generally on all
of the time must be a greater problem in this respect. The switch to digital
TV won't help as the set top boxes associated with the change also use power
all of the time.

My house has the perfect aspect for the installation of solar panels which
would get around the day time problem. However these panels still have a
high capital cost even with the grants that can go with them.

Alan

In message .com,
writes
On Mar 13, 11:33 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
writes

In addition the Marxists have got in on the act, and you can never
trust that lot they are incapable of telling the truth. This is a
primary reason for the whole scenario becoming over-hyped.

Among the comments I've seen made about the programme is one alleging
that the director of the program is a Marxist.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Du...&hl=en&num=100
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley



Good point but that is the exception to the rule. There is a whole
gamut of Marxist groups in the UK and some are far more radical than
others. Durkin's lot the RCP, really see that those Marxist that are
prepared to work within capitalist democracy as revisionist! They all
though have one common denominator that being they are primarily the
domain of the middle-classes and generally white.

It is odd however that the Revolutionary Communist Party is supportive
of the USA in around about way. It would seem that Durkin's angle is
this: he feels that the developing third world countries will be
doomed to further poverty with rising fossil fuel costs and carbon
restrictions-and he is right. However the majority of the left are all
avid environmentalist who are only too willing to blame the USA ,
England and the west in general, not forgetting Israel which although
middle east is really seen as the west.

Perhaps Marxists have changed their spots, but Marxist governments have
a dreadful record on environmental responsibility. Even now the Chinese
government doesn't have a good reputation on these issues - I'd put them
on the reserve bench for the axis of (climatic) evil. (Perhaps you'll
now proceed to deny that they're Marxists.)

You are repeating a strawman from an earlier post of yours; we don't
have to use energy wastefully, we don't have to use particular sources
of energy to the exclusion of all others, and we don't have to release
the products of fossil fuel burning into the environment. Taking action
to remediate the effect of anthropogenic global warming will cost the
3rd world less than living with the costs - many of them exported from
the 1st world - of business as usual.

You know the Secretary for state for the environment David Milliband
is the son of the late Marxist Theoretician Ralph Milliband.

If you'll pardon me satirising your position here, guilt by association
is the tactic of Marxists and Fascists.

So I really do believe my post still stands.

Your post never stood in the first place; even if you hadn't shot
yourself in the foot by unintentionally (?) claiming the director of the
program was incapable of telling the truth, argumentum ad hominem is a
fallacy.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Mar 15, 4:31 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message .com,
writes



On Mar 13, 11:33 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
writes

In addition the Marxists have got in on the act, and you can never
trust that lot they are incapable of telling the truth. This is a
primary reason for the whole scenario becoming over-hyped.

Among the comments I've seen made about the programme is one alleging
that the director of the program is a Marxist.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Du...&hl=en&num=100
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Good point but that is the exception to the rule. There is a whole
gamut of Marxist groups in the UK and some are far more radical than
others. Durkin's lot the RCP, really see that those Marxist that are
prepared to work within capitalist democracy as revisionist! They all
though have one common denominator that being they are primarily the
domain of the middle-classes and generally white.

It is odd however that the Revolutionary Communist Party is supportive
of the USA in around about way. It would seem that Durkin's angle is
this: he feels that the developing third world countries will be
doomed to further poverty with rising fossil fuel costs and carbon
restrictions-and he is right. However the majority of the left are all
avid environmentalist who are only too willing to blame the USA ,
England and the west in general, not forgetting Israel which although
middle east is really seen as the west.

Perhaps Marxists have changed their spots, but Marxist governments have
a dreadful record on environmental responsibility. Even now the Chinese
government doesn't have a good reputation on these issues - I'd put them
on the reserve bench for the axis of (climatic) evil. (Perhaps you'll
now proceed to deny that they're Marxists.)

You are repeating a strawman from an earlier post of yours; we don't
have to use energy wastefully, we don't have to use particular sources
of energy to the exclusion of all others, and we don't have to release
the products of fossil fuel burning into the environment. Taking action
to remediate the effect of anthropogenic global warming will cost the
3rd world less than living with the costs - many of them exported from
the 1st world - of business as usual.



You know the Secretary for state for the environment David Milliband
is the son of the late Marxist Theoretician Ralph Milliband.

If you'll pardon me satirising your position here, guilt by association
is the tactic of Marxists and Fascists.

So I really do believe my post still stands.

Your post never stood in the first place; even if you hadn't shot
yourself in the foot by unintentionally (?) claiming the director of the
program was incapable of telling the truth, argumentum ad hominem is a
fallacy.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley



The left in the delevoped capitalist countries are very diferent from
the communist of the old Soviet Union and China. The communist party
of Great Britain although have a small working class element were
predominantly ranked by the intellectual middle-classes. These people
although meaning well developed a poloitical raionale for not telling
the truth. This backed by the self loathing af England and it's
colonial and imperialist past has led to a totally different communist
left. That's why the environment whether you like it or not, has
became a focal point for further self loathing. Post war as stalin
killed further millions as did Chairman Mao the left got themselves in
a total tizzy tyring to reconcile the cruel capitalist west against
the virtuous workers states of Russia and China, blimey even now they
excuse the human rights abuses in Cuba. The left in their self hatred
have even adopted a backward archaic religion called islam to further
their spoilt petulant foot stomping. That's why the GW debate is so
biased. It's an increasing perception that the BBC consist of these
white middle class marxist and a motely collection of bitter, twisted,
self interest groups.

As for "If you'll pardon me satirising your position here, guilt by
association is the tactic of Marxists and Fascists." I believe the
trotskyists use to call that sophistry.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 222040 20070314 145549 "Tiger"
wrote:

Just look at what happens when some scientists express an alternative
view.

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

snipped

What is the relevance of that article to the current discussion?
Do you think that when people get death threats it proves them right?

No but it proves that some of the GW bandwagoners are so full of hatred that
they have to stoop to violence to chastise the non-believers. Imagine what
would happen if some of these left looney nutters had real
power....disenters burnt -oops sorry to much polluting C02- stuck on a
stake.