New MPG ratings
EPA has changed the way it estimates MPG.
Starting in model year 2008, estimates reflect the effects of:
-Faster Speeds & Acceleration
-Air Conditioner Use
-Colder Outside Temperatures
This is one of those times when you have to screenshot the webpage because at some point someone will realize what they've done and take it down. The bottom line is that you get fewer miles per gallon due to colder temperatures and we need to raise your miles per gallon to stop global warming. It's a vicious cycle.
27 comments:
This is one of those times when you have to screenshot the webpage because at some point someone will realize what they've done and take it down.
The forecast today in Miglavia is for a lot of hot air, with plenty of unintended irony.
Unless global warming doesn't mean the temperature of every single climate region in the world is increasing. Which it does, in fact, not. Global warming refers to the average temperature of the entire planet. Some places will freeze. Other places will be cooked. Good times.
"Global warming refers to the average temperature of the entire planet. Some places will freeze. Other places will be cooked. Good times."
Sounds like the way the planet has always been. At least since the END OF THE ICE AGE.
Daniel, if they made a Simpsons episode about you I'd have you be Bart and at the beginning of the episode in the credits you would have to write "climate DOES NOT EQUAL weather" continually on the chalkboard.
CLIMATE DOES NOT EQUAL WEATHER
It appears that Daniel has failed to understand what's going on here.
It's not that the EPA is saying that, in general, the air temperatures are colder. What they are saying is that, in the past, they didn't take cold outside temperatures into account in calculating fuel economy. They are now taking that into account.
It's not that they are saying a variable has changed. They're saying they are adding a new variable.
Here's a disturbing story for you deniers:
http://trueslant.com/jeffmcmahon/2009/07/26/declassified-arctic-ice-photos/
It's troubling that the Bush administration kept these photos classified. I guess they didn't want us to see the truth.
Climate Change: A new scientific paper says that man has had little or nothing to do with global temperature variations.
Their research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, indicates that nature, not man, has been the dominant force in climate change in the late 20th century.
BTW: thanks, RR, for staying on-topic.
Statements about isolated studies like this, even if true, are made only with the intention of absolving human beings of doing anything in response. It's the ultimate cop-out: We aren't the main culprits, so why do anything? Why not make the same argument about a wildfire? Or even Katrina? We didn't make the wind blow, so why help those people clean it up? Anyone coming at the global warming perspective from the vantage point of the Bushies has NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER in asserting what is true and what isn't in the global warming "debate." That administration's single-minded dedication to obscuring and distorting scientific fact in the interest of corporate interests has been so thoroughly and exhaustively documented as to render anyone who touts that bullshit a complete fool/liar or both. Which would include Daniel Miglavs. If you guys had been alive in the 1400s, I have little doubt that you would have been among the ignoramuses imploring Columbus not to stray too far out of the backyard because he would sail right over the "edge," as there was not scientific unanimity on the question of whether the earth was round or flat. Compared to Miglavs, Bart Simpson looks like Stephen Hawking (who, by the way, is among those reputable scientists who says that climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet). You want to poo-poo climate change? Take it up with the gentleman in the wheelchair, Mr. Redline. And thanks to Kaelri and Roadrunner for attempting to cut through the bullshit, although with this bunch, it's likely a wasted effort.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=618074
That's quite a spread in terms of intelligence and general outlook: Hawking is worried about the future of the planet; Miglavs is worried that he's doomed to spend his life pressing "1" for English.
Global warming is a scam. Humans do not cause global warming. Anyone that believes in this claptrap garbage is STUPID.
The globe does warm everyday and cools everyday...just watch the sun rise and then set. it gets warm then cool. wow.
global warming is being pushed by neomarxists pushing to have one world government. it is a must to control the sheeple before there can be only "one" government.
The anonymous blogger who goes by "Max Redline" has a post saying that last week that "Tuesday 21 July was the coldest day ever recorded in Nashville, Tennessee".
Now, this seemed doubtful, since it's July. There likely are plenty of days that have been colder than last Tuesday. In fact, it was cooler a couple of days before that.
It's true that last Tuesday was a record low temperature for the date, but that's really meaningless.
I tried to comment on his post, but apparently he has banned me, despite his protestations to the contrary (my post appears for a second or two, then is gone).
It's also further demonstration that the deniers are unable to distinguish between weather and climate.
Look at these two series of numbers:
5, 6, 6, 10
4, 8, 8, 9
Now, if you look at those two series of numbers, you'll notice that the extremes of the first are higher than than the extremes of the second (the lowest number is higher, as is the highest number). Those are analogous to weather events.
Now look at the average of both series. The average of the first is 6.75, the average of the second 7.25. Even though the extremes are higher, the average is lower. This is analogous to climate.
Just because some extremes in some places are lower, that doesn't mean that the earth as a whole is cooling.
I don't know of anyone who believes that human activity by itself causes global warming. I don't think anyone is saying we're causing it. But clearly, the industrialization of the globe over the last 60 years sure has exacerbated the problem. To deny that is to basically argue that human beings have no discernable impact on our physical environment, and if you seriously believe that, you are a TOTAL fucking idiot completely beyond the pale, and really have no business even participating in the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. As comments by reputable scientists such as Dr. Hawking and THOUSANDS of other scientists indicate, it's a deadly serious problem. We ignore them at our peril. It's amazing to me that Miglavians can ignore/deny that, and yet work themselves into a lather about immigration, which has been going on since human beings have been able to put one foot in front of the other and which no one, no one anywhere, is going to stop, ever, no matter what laws you pass and enforce, no matter how high your walls are, and no matter how many people you lock up.
Runner,
Is your IP address 16.20.150.43?
That is the only address that has been banned in the history of the blog; it was done because the user failed to abide by well-defined terms of use, even after being warned.
It has been rather a long period since that ban was imposed, so I'll pull that. If you can comment there afterward, then it would appear that you were in fact the anon who peppered every sentence with expletives.
Behave as an adult; be treated as one.
@Observer: It's the ultimate cop-out: We aren't the main culprits, so why do anything? Why not make the same argument about a wildfire?
So you argue in favor of sound forest management practices which include thinning and the removal of damaged timber? Then oddly, we're on the same side.
Stephen Hawking (who, by the way, is among those reputable scientists who says that climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet).
Not "man-made global warming". Climate change - which Hawking is careful not to attribute to the sort of human activities that allow him to survive.
I agree with Hawking: climate change is always among the greatest common threats faced by humankind. It simply is not caused by humans.
In point of fact, human impact upon planetary climate is imperceptibly small.
The planet Earth is mis-named, as it is mostly covered in water. And what is the single most influential greenhouse gas? Water. Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually ignored.
So the ignnorant bring in computer models that predict "forcings" orders of magnitude higher for CO2 than for water vapor, so that they can blame human activity - which means that they then have reason to regulate human activity. However, if you wish to regulate something, then what you should be doing is focusing upon an even more potent greenhouse gas:
Methane.
The primary source of methane in the planetary atmosphere is derived from the most numerous and industrious builders on the planet - and they aren't human. They're termites. And they emit huge quantities of a very potent greenhouse gas.
If you want to control and regulate, I suggest that you begin by rounding up all of the billions of termites in the world and fitting them with tiny butt-plugs.
Have fun!
So you argue in favor of sound forest management practices which include thinning and the removal of damaged timber?
Yes, I do agree with you on that point.
I also agree with you that climate change is not man-made, but it very definitely is impacted by humans, and both I and Dr. Hawking would disagree with you regarding your suggestion that the impact of human activity on climate change is "imperceptibly small." If that were actually, indisputably true, then there would be no debate raging about what to do about it.
Is your IP address 16.20.150.43?
No. I don't work at HP.
So, either you're extremely forgetful, or you're just plain lying.
No wonder you like Patrick Joubert Conlon so much--neither one of you cares a whit about the truth.
Runner, do try to stay on-topic for a change.
So, either you're extremely forgetful, or you're just plain lying.
That address has been freed to post, although it's easy enough to see why some ban you - tossing around comments like the above make it clear that you are still not up to the challenges of adult conversation.
Oddly enough, the records don't lie. One inDUHvidual was banned from my site, and that address has been freed.
So: either you're really stupid and can't figure out how to post on a not-for-free site (I pay for it), or
I'll go with option one.
-----------------------
@Observer: I also agree with you that climate change is not man-made, but it very definitely is impacted by humans, and both I and Dr. Hawking would disagree with you regarding your suggestion that the impact of human activity on climate change is "imperceptibly small." If that were actually, indisputably true, then there would be no debate raging about what to do about it.
Nice to get back on topic, and nice to see some points of agreement. Let's explore the differences.
I disagree with your closing statement because anthropogenic global warming is, fundamentally, political rather than scientific. The debate, regardless of what head prophet AlGore would have you believe, is far from over, and the science is not in.
It is indisputable that climate change has occurred since the dawn of time; it is likewise indisputable that similar rises and falls occur simultaneously not only on our planet, but on others as well. It is therefore silly to ascribe changes on this planet to human activity, unless one has a really huge ego that needs to be fed.
If similar changes did not occur at the same time on other planets in the solar system, then one might reasonably suspect some biological aspect - perhaps even human - possibly accounts for the unique change. However, that is not the case. Therefore, we must rule out human activity for the time being, and look to other influences.
What common influence comes to mind?
"Global warming is a scam. Humans do not cause global warming. Anyone that believes in this claptrap garbage is STUPID.
The globe does warm everyday and cools everyday...just watch the sun rise and then set. it gets warm then cool. wow.
global warming is being pushed by neomarxists pushing to have one world government. it is a must to control the sheeple before there can be only "one" government."
FYI - everybody, I think this is Miglavs posting anonymously. His favorite new terms include "sheeple" and "neomarxists".
This is why Miglavs allows anonymous postings. He is so intellectually impoverished, and he knows he can't back up the bullshit raised in his original posts. But, he's too much of a narcisist to not respond to people constantly intelectually thrashing him, so he does so anonymously, in an effort to maintain his "credibility". What fucking childish way to roll through life.
We will, obviously, have to agree to disagree, although one thing I'd follow up on is your suggestion that "the science is not in."
This is a disingenuous argument, in my view. Objectively speaking, of course the science "is not in" -- if by that you mean EVERY single piece of quantifiable, measurable evidence that could possibly be collected. Science is an ongoing investigation. It always has been. It will always be possible to pull one more ice core, to do one more study, to dig a little deeper for the fossil record. But there reaches a point where "preonderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes into play.
One might also argue that the science "is not in" regarding evolution, and of course it is true that we do not have a TOTAL, exhaustive collection of the entire fossil record, DNA record and every other conceivable piece of scientific evidence that could possibly be collected. But the vast preponderance of evidence points to the inescapable conclusion of evolution -- a view that is disputed, remarkably enough, by people who actually think we are descended from two people who made love in a garden!
It's like a crime scene: You have a dead body in a room, with knife wounds. The only other DNA in the room belongs to John Doe, whose bloody shoes match the footprints on the floor, his fingerprints are on his knife (for which he has a receipt) on the door knob, for which he has a receipt, his knife blade matches the wounds, and several people saw him fleeing the room bloodied, carrying the knife. Furthermore, scores of witnesses testify to the fact that John Doe hated the victim, and had been heard threatening to kill him, and someone even heard the victim screaming, "No, John, no!!!"
But wait! Because no one actually saw the murder with their own eyes, the actual crime being committed, would a rational person argue that "the evidence is not in" and conclude that John Doe absoutely did NOT kill the guy? Of course not.
The science will never "be in," if by "in" you mean complete. But tell me this: Based on your understanding of the issue, what is the consensus of the majority of scientists on the planet regarding climate change who have weighed in on the subject, and what, in general, do they suggest?
I wouldn't trust Al Gore further than I could throw him, and I doubt I could lift him, but putting his propensity for hyperbole and political opportunism aside, his assessment of the climate change problem is correct, in my view. I haven't read his book, but I don't have to. Enough of the science is, in fact, "in," and readily available to those who care to study it.
2:58
HELLO, you seem a little paranoid..and weird. but I digress....
My name is Pinkie French. I live in Klamath Falls Oregon
Daniel is not posting
neomarxist and sheeple...I AM. Sometimes I sign my blogs sometimes I dont. You know that ancient Hawiian saying dont you? "bummer aint it"
I am not sure what your beef is with Daniel, however, you need to perhaps get some mental help along with an rx of xanax. You act more like a stocker then some blogger.
I didn't know science was a democracy. So now we just go by what the majority of scientists say, like "the Earth is flat"?
The UN are not scientists, and neither is Al Gore.
In a sense, it is a democracy, to the extent that peer review is an essential component of serious scientific work, subjecting one's work to rigorous scrutiny by experts in that particular field. And it isn't a matter of counting scientists ... it's looking at the data that they unearth. What does the preponderance of data from credible sources indicate? That's the question ... and to that question, the answer is clear.
The truth according to Roadrunner is not necessarily "truth" at all.
@944: In a sense, it is a democracy, to the extent that peer review is an essential component of serious scientific work, subjecting one's work to rigorous scrutiny by experts in that particular field.
Has any of your work ever been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Mine has. Believe me, I am well acquainted with the process, and your take on it is far from accurate.
The "experts" approve only that with which they agree, and grant funding is to a large extent reliant upon publication.
As one example: a colleague attempted to publish in the journal Science a description of the flehman response in Asian elephants, together with detailed chemical analysis of materials that yielded the response, and a detailed description of the vomeronasal system that mediates the response. Publication was initially denied because the "experts" reviewing her material were convinced that such a response did not exist in elephants. They "knew", you see.
Eventually, her article was a front-page publication in that journal, but only after she changed the wording from "flehmen response" to "flemen-like response".
Today, of course, the existence of the vomeronasal system and its importance in mediating chemocommunication among elephants is well established and widely accepted within the scientific community.
Her intransigence, the very audacity of writing an article that disagreed with prevailing scientific wisdom at the time, was received in much the same way that you, "Observer", and others receive news of studies that are at odds with your established preconceptions.
Although some here have attempted to trivialize my prior statement to the effect that the science is never "in", such efforts in no way detract from the veracity of my comment.
The Sun once was well-known to revolve around a flat earth. That was the concensus of the time, and those who dared to present evidence to the contrary were ridiculed and even imprisoned as heretics.
Much the same as we see today in regard to the Religion of Man-Made Global Warming - although nobody has yet been imprisoned. Yet.
I am not a scientist, so no, I have not had writing "peer-reviewed" in a scientific journal.
I think it's a case of seeing the glass half-empty, in your case. If I carry your argument to its logical conclusion: The incident with this women was not an aberation, but was in fact typical of peer-review. One might conclude, from this single example, that the entire process of peer-review is fundamentally flawed from the outset, and since that's the case, peer-review ought to be dumped entirely. (How scientific a decision would that be?) Forget it. Just let scientists publish whatever the hell they want, including all those ufologists who insist that science has "proven" the reality of alien implants in human beings!
One thing your anecdote doesn't say: Perhaps the woman simply hadn't made her case. Was this a case of her being right, but by accident? By virtue of lucky speculation? Maybe so, maybe not. She faces the same standard as an attorney: It doesn't matter what she knows, it matters what she can prove. Perhaps what she turned in didn't nail it down.
No process is perfect. You could listen to any one of a thousand different people from as many different professions tell you some sour-grapes-style horror story from their field that might as well lead you to include that the entire enterprise in which their involved -- farming, making cars, gourmet cooking, whatever -- is a fraud. So for all its potential flaws, I think I'll stand by the process of peer-review and in the court of Dr. Hawking, who, on the subject of climate change, is vastly smarter than either of us and happens to believe that the limited number of scientists you've got standing in your court are wrong.
The salient point, Observer, is that the article was headlined after she made the concession to call it a "flehmen-like" response, rather than what it actually is.
This goes on all the time. Like all systems devised by people, peer-review often goes awry: rather than ensuring quality, it often ensures dogma.
While I respect Dr. Hawking, I don't believe that he's infallible. I don't attribute god-like qualities to any man.
I'd like to take this moment, however, to thank you for addressing the subject at hand - and in a cogent and well-thought manner. It's not something often seen here, where drive-by pot-shots so often rule.
I disagree with some of your views, but with respect. You make your points well.
Would that others could do the same.
On that point, we agree, same to you. Thank-you for an interesting discussion, enjoyed it.
Post a Comment