Do you have any concern for the environment when keeping your equipment 24/7 ?

I have been told, here at Audiogon, that it is best to leave gear on. The Proceed HPA2 manual suggests that this be done as well and lists the energy consumed when doing so. Likewise the manual for my Audio Research LS-16 says it is okay and better for consistent SQ but at the expense of decreased tube life.

So for a while I was leaving them both in standby mode.

A while later I noticed that in standby mode they still both generate a fair amount of heat. While that may be fine in the winter....in which case it might even be required by the Green New Deal Doctrine and enforced diligently by the Green Police....not to be confused with the Dream Police....there is no way I'm leaving them on in the summer.

Well class D amps are NOT fake news. Al Gore bought 4 when he realized that his "near future" predictions were fake news.

According to some of our elected 'leaders' that is only about 12 years away.

@kosst : "Unfortunately"? I don't get it. Nukes don't significantly contribute to global warming and the resistance to nuclear power in the 70's by misguided environmentalists is a big part of the mess we're in now.

@noble100 :

"I'm thinking jettisoning these non-believers......."

All in jest, I hope. 

But that is what it always boils down to, no? One cult vs the next? The 'Believers', 'The Knowledgeable Ones', 'The Elite' verses the 'Non-Believers', 'The Deniers', 'The Low Brows'.

If we could just silence those 'other ones' or better yet be rid of them altogether then we'd all be better off. And we don't have to wonder all that hard about how to do it......so many 'famous' leaders before us have blazed that trail...........

*************************

If you have to ask yourself one question about the science of global warming it should be this: How is it possible that a net global temperature change of several degrees can cause only harmful outcomes?

The answer is that it is not possible. Not even remotely possible. And no science, no math, no statistics, no models that are untainted by political ideology could ever even suggest such a preposterous notion. And yet, have you ever heard of one single prognostication about global warming that was not bad?

Why?

Tim, all of these models are based on the assumption that we are in a state of beneficial equilibrium _now_ or at least recently.

Such prognostications also invariably fail to account for the adaptability of human innovation and resilience and always fail to give nature credit for adaptability as well.

This has always been a weak link in the environmentalist world view. It always fixes on a certain state of being and seeks to preserve it at that chosen point.

In other words, in the 1770s during the mini ice age a prediction of higher temperatures would have been greeted as salvation. As it turns out, due to unknowns which they (western Europe, North America) could not foresee (and even with our tech, neither could we) the mini ice age was directly responsible for hugely beneficial events and changes for the world at large.

The problem with so much of the global warming models is that they are derived by people, scientists, our modern day priests, who openly hold political ideologies that are anti-capitalist and pro wealth re-distribution. Their models invariably support their ideological dreams. And since models are not pure science they are easily shaped. This conflict of interest, failure to account for beneficial outcomes and the polarized way in which this science is reported on have greatly damaged the credibility of climate science whether you are a ’believer’ or a ’skeptic’.

Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW.

@cleeds First off, the reference to short term forecasts was in jest. Second, the accuracy of short term forecasts depends on how you define 'short term' and how you define accurate. And while you might describe it as 'remarkably accurate' it is rather common, around here, for it to be utterly wrong. A prediction of 10% chance of rain and an actual occurrence of two hours of heavy rain might be considered 'accurate'....unless you are planning an outdoor wedding.The point being that you can be accurate most of the time and utterly inaccurate the rest. And these forecasts are based on computer models. The question is how much do you put at stake with computer models? For tomorrow or the next decade?

Longer term forecasting (6-12 months) has proven to be if-y at best. Hurricane season predictions have been a joke for the last 10 years.

When I was in the Air Force at a coastal base there was a large glass window looking over the flight line in the flight-ops area. Someone had used masking tape to frame a box on the window. Below it was written "Accu-View Weather window.....as a joke about how variable the forecasting accuracy was.

@nonoise It is equally shocking that some folks will believe anything that someone calls "science" as if it were some so sort of religious dogma which cannot be questioned.

And the simple truth is that being skeptical of scientific findings is FAR more 'scientific' than drinking the science-flavored kool-aid without understanding it or questioning it as long as it fits a political world view.

Believe or disbelieve what you want. But to suggest we should all believe something because it is 'science' is the least scientific approach to understanding possible. 

There was a time when being liberal meant "question everything" and "never trust the man". That's when there was something noble and endearing about the liberal world view. 

@nonoise You see, the problem is that no one here has actually "outright dismissed" global warming. That is where the religious-like fanaticism is so evident. 

That's my whole point. Any word against the full ideology of climate change is seen as 'unscientific', 'uninformed', 'backwards'. That is a response to a religious belief structure. Not science. Science welcomes examination.

I do not deny that there is climate change. By its very nature, climate changes.

The point is that it is a critical (and unjust) mistake to believe that everyone who questions climate change ideology is anti-scientific or ignorant. Many of us have looked at the evidence and how it was collected and applied and find it to lack the critical mass to dictate geopolitical direction. This is compounded by the approach that we must slow or alter the climate change when we have not even come close to establishing that we are responsible for it. And even if you believe we are responsible for it there is ZERO evidence we can alter it in a meaningful way especially when you figure in China, India, Russia and the third world.

So let's put the rhetoric of propaganda away and not assume someone is ignorant or evil because they don't agree with you. Chances are that many of us have examined the issue with a critical eye in ways you may not have.

Besides, I am by nature a conservationist. Waste is anathema to me. I always turn off the lights. I walk everywhere I can. Not because its going to make August any less miserable in South Carolina in 2040....but because its the right thing to do.

P.S.: you might need to research the demise of nuclear power in the US a little better.