Another Eco-Nazi epic fail

Once more the Watermelons, in an attempt to dictate how everyone shall live, screwed the pooch.

Low energy LED lightbulbs could be giving us all HEADACHES because they flicker too much, expert warns

Energy-saving lightbulbs could be giving us all headaches as they flicker too much.

LED bulbs can bring on feelings of dizziness and pain within just 20 minutes of switching them on, an expert has warned.

Professor Arnold Wilkins, professor of psychology at the University of Essex, said the flickering of the unpopular lights is stronger than for traditional lightbulbs.

While fluorescent lights, such as those in offices, dim by around 35 per cent with every flicker, LED lights dim by 100 per cent. It means they effectively turn off and on again hundreds of times every second.

This can cause headaches by disrupting movement control of the eyes, forcing the brain to work harder. Flickering LED bulbs could double the chances of suffering a headache, based on previous research.

The warning comes as Britain is set to ban halogen lightbulbs completely next September under EU law. They are currently being phased out, with major retailer IKEA already only offering LED bulbs for sale. [snip]

A study from 1989 conducted by Professor Wilkins found fluorescent lighting which flickered 100 times a second doubled the chances of office workers experiencing headaches. LED lightbulbs can flash 400 times a second – four times as often.

Writing on the website The Conversation, Professor Wilkins said: ‘No similar study has yet been performed for LED lights. But because LED flickering is even more pronounced, with the light dimming by 100 per cent rather than the roughly 35 per cent of fluorescent lamps, there’s a chance that LEDs could be even more likely to cause headaches.

‘At best, it’s likely to put some people off using LED bulbs because of the annoying, distracting effect of the flickering, which we know can be detected during saccades.’

The risk of headaches may be particularly high while reading, when it is important to position the eyes carefully to scan the pages.

Flickering lightbulbs disrupt the control of this eye movements, making the brain use more energy to work harder, which has been linked to headaches.

It can also cause people to suffer visual anomalies, such as double or multiple vision. The lamp in front of you may look like two or three lamps because of this visual effect when a bulb flickers. [snip]

The flickering can be solved by buying a more expensive lamp, with a direct current rather than an alternating current so that the light is constant. But the lamp’s components may not last as long. [snip]

Those individual curly florescent bulbs are a toxic waste site if you drop and break one. Read the procedures for cleaning up the breakage and you won’t use them. No, you can’t just vacuum up the broken glass, you have to deal with the mercury.

I solved this problem back when the ban was going into effect. I bought two cases of 60w and a case of 75w incandescent bulbs plus four packs of 3-way bulbs and a case and a half of floods for track lights. Any fixtures I buy for the interior work just need A base sockets.

Screw the Watermelons.

Climate Foibles

Climate Foibles

Perhaps you expected the truth from the likes of Al Gore and the crowd at East Anglia. Or maybe even Obama when he pontificated about Global Warming/Climate Change. He wouldn’t lie about something as important as that, now would he? No. In a pig’s ass he would, and did.

EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend. [snip]

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.” [snip]

Obama and the EPA manipulated numbers to set the rules on CO2 regulations for coal and oil affecting other energy users in the long term.

Dead broke Watermelons

With all this changing climate, one would believe we would need all the wool we could get for cold weather gear, what with the arctic ice growing and Greenland being not so green.

Instead we’re being fleeced badly and left on the outside of the cozy Watermelon Redistribution Clubhouse of the Climate Change Socio-Marxist Group. Now badly are we taken? This badly:

With President forgoing our loitering in that idiot Paris Accord, we just folded our money and put it back in our pocket. Let those other freeloaders front the loot if they’re so worries about the Planet.
As the President says:

Observations

Given that the EPA wants to control just about every aspect of your life, We here at Vermont Loon Watch believe they should have the best tools available at the lowest cost to the American taxpayer.
For water test kits, each field water sampling engineer needs to be supplied with the finest assortment of Flavor Straws.

Let them slurp and suck the pond and river waters to their hearts content and arriving back at the lab, they can give a first hand report on water quality. If necessary, an emesis bag for sample collecting can be made part of the kit.
Since all these individuals claim to be scientists, we doubt it necessary to remind them to keep their shot records up to date; Typhus, Typhoid, Cholera are important. Amoebic dysentery giardia, a variety of parasitic worms and some more of the rarer types should be noted as possible infections. There are prophylactics for most of these, be aware and be safe. We don’t want anything to happen to our EPA staffers.

All new employees of the EPA shall be required to start their EPA careers in the water quality section. After five years of genuine field work, they will advance to standing and occasional water (non-navigational) such as found in lawns and driveways.
With all this experience, they should be expert at identifying such bodies of wetness tat even waterfowl eschew.

Go get’em Social Justice Warriors!

Toon in

A look at political idiocy in it’s raw form

The Idiot Class, that would be the Legislature of the State of Vermont, have locked on their vision onto the utopian world of Pandora. There is nothing in the real world of science that can sway them from their belief that they have the power to save the planet. The reverse is more true; the planet needs to be saved from the likes of them.

Once more we find an excellent wordsmith working in a measured way.

The full article is HERE.

Vermont carbon tax in limbo while neighboring states pick up the effort

While hopes of passing a carbon tax in Vermont are dimming by the day, a development in nearby Connecticut could breathe new life into the initiative.

According to a CTNewsJunkie report, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire are considering carbon taxes.

“The strategy among the carbon tax supporters is to just put it in front of all the different legislatures,” Matt Cota, executive director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, told Watchdog. “We had our turn last year, and maybe now it’s Connecticut [that has a chance of passing the tax]. But I fully suspect that this is an issue that won’t go away.”

In the case of Connecticut’s proposal, H.B. 7247, the tax could be $15 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent that would be released by burning such fuel, increasing by $5 each following year until a special committee decides otherwise. Like the proposals floated in Vermont, supporters claim it will mostly be “revenue neutral,” meaning most of the money will find its way back to citizens in one form or another. [snip]

Sure the money will come back, but not to the taxpayers. Money of this type only get used for NEW entitlements. Those never go to the gouged, but to those with their grubby hands out, you know them, the perpetual collectors of the dole.

While a federal carbon tax seems unlikely under the Trump Administration, Brown said that there is language in the bill for a regional effort that neighboring states could join.Stephen Rosental, president of Leahy’s Fuel in Danbury, Conn., said his business is located six miles from the New York state line, and he’s concerned a carbon tax for Connecticut would disadvantage his business and send customers across the state line.

“In seven years out we would be at a 50 cents per gallon of fuel oil disadvantage to New York,” he said. “There are plenty of oil companies right near the border, and that’s a major problem that will ever be growing. It’s basically a death knell to the industry anywhere near that border.”

Chris Herb, of the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, represents about 600 heating oil dealers and about a 1,000 gas stations. He says the policy is a grave threat to the industry.

“I think that it’s probably the largest threat to the economy. It will do significant damage to our ability to attract and maintain employers,” he said.

He added that a carbon tax would not reduce fuel usage.

Eventually it will reduce usage in two ways. First it drives users away, killing the suppliers business and it pauperizes those that cannot leave the area for more favorable economic places.
Progressive have a loathing for any profit making livelihood.

“Even when gas prices double, it’s almost the same consumption,” Herb said. “All this will do is put tremendous pressure on middle and working class. This isn’t about incentivizing solar or wind, this is about punishing you for going to work.”

Back in Vermont, S.66,, authored by state Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, has not seen any action since its first reading in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Feb. 3. While backers such as the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and the Vermont Natural Resources Council hyped the bill for 2017, opponents including the free-market Ethan Allen Institute have successfully campaigned against the policy.

“The Ethan Allen Institute worked hard to explain to Vermonters just what they were being asked to buy into,” EAI Vice President John McClaughry wrote in a recent online commentary.

Since Republican Gov. Phil Scott has repeatedly promised to veto a carbon tax, supporters may have to settle for commissioning a study on the policy, or it could be revived if attached to another bill.

With Progressives, it is always