HDTV Almanac - California Chooses Stick Over Carrot

[alfredpoor]

Yesterday, the California Energy Commission (CEC) made it official, and unanimously adopted new energy requirements for televisions sold in the state. It sets electricity consumption limits for sets up to 58″ diagonal. The first level takes effect January 2011, at which time one source indicates a 42″ must not consumer more than 183 watts. In [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/11/hdtv_almanac_california_choose_stick_over_carrot.php]Read Column[/url]

[BobDiaz]

I am so angry with the California Energy Commission (CEC); California has the LOWEST energy usage per household of any of the states in the Union, BUT the retards at the CEC still want to impost more restrictive standards on us.

http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electri ... _2005.html

Then they have the gall to tell us that this is going to save us money and offer better products. No way, this is going to cost us more and give us TVs with lower brightness levels that won't look as good. This is what we get for voting for stupid liberals who put bone head environments on the CEC.

Try this, do a search on the term, "Global Cooling" and you'll see that the news media is feeding us lies about Global Warming. If "Global Warming" is real, then why has the Earth not gotten warmer for the past 11 years? Why has 2007, 2008, and 2009 shown a drop in the temperature? Why is it that 1/2 the scientific papers published in the Scientific Journals say the change in temperature is due to emissions from the sun, NOT CO2?

These types of rules have NOTHING to do about "saving the Earth", it has to do with CONTROLLING THE MASSES. Here's what's coming next....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... wance.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

[alfredpoor]

UPDATE: Paul Semenza and Paul Gagnon of DisplaySearch have also <a href="http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2009/11/the-cea-fails-to-dissuade-the-cec/">written about this decision</a>, and provide <b>an excellent graph </b>showing how many existing models are already below the 2011 limits, and a significant number <b>already meet the 2013 requirements</b>.

[ccclvib]

This is for BobDiaz:

From today's news: "Floods devastate UK Lake District; much of Ireland"

The word "Unprecedented" is used more than once in the article I read. You don't get extremely heavy rain from "Global Cooling."

...and, if so many current sets are already within limits, why the fuss in the first place?

[dadden]

Sorry, but this is a politically oriented stand on global warming.
I know a scientist who is anything but a radical liberal and has been tracking temperatures since well before my time. During the second world war they were monitoring temperature in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. I has been noted that the temperatures have been increasing over decades.
I didn't believe it until I was shown the tables containing the data that had been recorded over the decades before and since my birth.

I do agree that it would be useful to look at the industry figures and they seem to show that the devices are going to be within easy reach of the requirements.

As to claims regarding the lack of brightness... I have been working in theatre for years and we have been making brighter and brighter light sources that use less and less power. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't find that I need the full power of my display. In fact, I use the low power setting and never have my brightness setting past the mid point. As long as the color temperature is screwed up by the lower power outputs I don't care if my display uses less power. I don't need a space heater, which by the way most of our monitors are. By the way, the improvements in technology used in power supplies for the light sources have made it easier to modulate and accurately control the output levels and color temperature.

It may be annoying but it is not the end of the world. At least not to TV technology and not yet.
If we consider events and regulations in a rational light it will make discussion and debate easier. Reactionary rhetoric is not going to help in either understanding or coming to an amicable solution. I guess it depends on what we all want to achieve.

Brian.

[portkins]

A hacker got in to a global warming science database. E-mails within that community confirm numbers were doctored to make global warming look real. If you have an open mind read it. If not, keep thinking global warming is here.

check out the link

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... rs_to.html

[ccclvib]

Also doctored thousands of pictures that show how much glaciers have shrunk everywhere over the past 50 years? ...and doctored the water levels on Pacific atolls - many of which are now under water? Try that one.

[portkins]

Always an answer.
Never an admission there has been bad or fraudulent science.

All I can hope for is when things get so bad economically for this country that you help out if you are one of the rich exploiters (banksters)
or if you say "Hey those "alarmists" were right. I effed up in dismissing them. If you are a normal middle class person.

Constitution 3 pages. Health bill 2,000 pages.

We made hundreds of years with one. We will be in big trouble with the other

How and why did the native americans get here wasn't it migration?
Can't people move from those sinking atolls?

[stevekaden]

portkins, "can't people migrate?" Yes they can, did well for the Israelis didn't it. How many people do you want in your back yard - or is shoving them out into the desert acceptable for you? Despite my mentioning downsides, that is not the issue - given long term dire predictions, approximately 2 billion people are living in future sub-oceanic turf.

Where are they going to go? And of course other dire predictions are more worrysome, ask the Kenyans whose glacial melt is ending, and they are beggining to worry about water, hydro-electric power, and indeed, a spiritual system that is now failing them. The reality is there. It can not be said enough - and again, the permafrost is now melting releasing the really scary stuff, methane and it's implications.

Yes I will have answers, as long as there are deniers of the blatantly obvious. Kinda like arguing with those who still feel we had a reason to invade Iraq, and ignoring Afganistan for the most part.

[portkins]

I like how you meld from one subject to the next

Iraq and Afganistan have both been a disaster.
You don't seem to push too hard that we need to add troops or get out.

Israel with a democracy has turned a wasteland into a pretty fertile area. It's oppresive governemnts that keep people down and keeps them from migrating.

I wouldn't mind some more people to migrate to this country as long as they were productive and work hard.

We welcome everybody just don't want to pay for them to live here. Despite someone at the top always bowing and apologizing for this country, I know immigrants from all parts off the world. They all say the biggest dream is to get to America.
PS Ya think India and China will be curbing emissions anytime soon. They put lead in toys. Antifreeze in food products. Slave labor in China. But we can trust them to curb emissions?

Wait till they are driving 400 million cars. Even when we are forced into the dark ages and are forced to use lights containing mercury which are (hardly ever disposed of properly) , we will not be doing enough to cut greenhouse gasses.

Will you give Glen Beck a try? 2 nights. I will suffer through Olberman and Matthews if you agree to do that.

Let me know what you think.