Rather than making ludicrous and unsubstantiated claims, could you point to a single scientific body with national or international standing which holds the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming to be either false or fraudulent?
In case it needs to be spelt out, this excludes denialist propaganda factories such as the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Not wanting to derail this thread into _that_ argument, I'll just link to my 'global warming' archive of article links, sequential from around 2008 (when I realized Earth's archaeological CO2 vs temp record is flatly incompatible with the fundamental assumptions of AGW, and started looking into it) to present. Links mostly saved sequentially by date, newest at the bottom.
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_stuck_ship_irony_info.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_CRU_emails_links.txtA couple of amusing examples just in the last few days:
* Australian BOM caught red-handed dishonestly manipulating Oz temperature data records to create an apparent strong warming trend over the last century, while the original raw data actually shows a slight cooling trend. Then they were caught lying _again_, when making claims about their justification for the manipulation.
* Receding Swiss glaciers inconveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new.
Getting back to hair driers, those cheering the 'ban it' mentality still aren't addressing the point that if you force people to use lower powered dryers, then the driers will just be used for longer. Basic physics - it takes a fixed number of joules to convert a set amount of water (in the hair) to vapor (in the air). Since the goal of someone using a hairdryer is to dry their hair, they'll just keep going until it is dry. So with a low power dryer they will simply use it for longer, with the same total energy use.
Same is probably true to some extent with vacuum cleaners. Less suck = more running it back and forth on the carpet. The 'less power --> longer use resulting in similar total energy consumption' relationship is probably more fuzzy (fluffy? cat-furred?) than with hair dryers. Conceivably the total energy consumption for a given cleaning job could even be higher with a less powerful vacuum cleaner. The banning mentality never takes the law of unintended consequences into account.
Someone mentioned paint strippers - yes, I wonder how any regulations to ban 'high power hair dryers' would differentiate from paint strippers and other such hot air blowers? I have a hot air gun that has adjustable power (don't they all?) and could be used as a hair dryer I suppose.
Personally I never use hair dryers for hair, despite having lots of hair. What I do use them for sometimes is heatshrink tubing and locating heat-intermittent electronics faults. For which the choice of power needed is mine, not some regulation's.
And in winter every cold evening I use a hairdryer for bed warming.
Personally I don't like electric blankets; prefer just a big pile of quilts. But getting into a cold bed isn't so fun. Getting into a cold bed and then immediately pointing a really high power hair dryer around under the blankets, warming up both myself and the bedsheets, is great. Just have to avoid airflow obstruction, and that's easily done by holding the dryer by the back end, with the fingers in a tent around the intake. But for this purpose, power and lots of it is best.
Do you imagine the ban-it freaks will make exceptions for that usage?
No I don't think so. Regardless that it only takes less than a minute to get nice and toasty.