« Banging My Head Against The (Great) Wall | Main | National Enquirer 1, LA Times 0 »

Paul Krugman: Nervous Liar

Within the dank and dreary pages of the New York Times, would-be socialist and failed economist Paul Krugman has decided to respond to the Republican drive to - finally - begin drilling for oil on the domestic territory on and just off the North American continent. Krugman counters the proposal not with a constructive suggestion for another means to address the need for price relief and reliable supply of arguably the most strategic resources for our economy, but by calling the Republican Party the "party of stupid". Krugman alleges, in a statement which seems to me as ironic as it is pathetically ignorant, that Republicans want to be known as the party of "real men don't think things through". What makes that ironic, is that Krugman demonstrates in his article the sort of knee-jerk smear and insult tactics that have typified Democrats throughout the last decade, yet Krugman is smugly unaware that he, like his friends on the Left, has yet to offer a single functional long-term solution worth considering. The Republicans' plan, however much Krugman derides it, is historically proven, and the mere suggestion by President Bush that it should be undertaken caused such a change in expected behavior on the markets that the price of oil immediately plunged. Krugman sneers at the idea of drilling where we know oil is waiting, where we have complete control of the working conditions, where logistics are far simpler than freighting the stuff in by overseas tanker, and where the U.S. companies' environmental practices - proven superior to any other oil-producing nation on the planet - would protect wildlife and nature better than any practical alternative. Krugman, after all, has heard from "experts" who insist that increasing supply will not lower prices. One wonders where such "experts" learned their macro-economics, but never mind. Krugman has decided the plan won't work, so much so that not once in his article does Mr. Krugman actually address the proposal in substance. In fact, Krugman presents more than a few lies along the way. Stupid, absurd lies, but blatant and insulting falsehoods.

Krugman claims, for example, that the Republican plans are all about "simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem". Far from it, actually, but Krugman would much rather portray the Republicans as neanderthals than people who have taken the time to consider the underlying causes of the crisis. Krugman implies that the Republicans care only about oil, when the Republicans in Congress have made it clear that they support research and development into alternative energy, especially in the long-term, but the Republicans, unlike Krugman and the Democrats, are dealing with the reality that for the foreseeable future there is a great need for oil, for a secure and reliable supply of it, and Americans are beginning to understand that we have a lot of oil right here at home, and the overall condition - the long-term condition - will be improved for businesses and citizens alike by depending on American companies to drill for oil on American territory.

But there is also a real and valid present effect to the debate. Krugman sneers when John Shadegg observed, "The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking". Krugman would have you ignore the fact that ever since the Republicans began the debate on homeland drilling, the price of oil has been dropping, along with pump prices. Pelosi and her crowd made excuses to avoid eth debate and literally ran away, but the Republicans stayed on the topic, and like it or not, Mr. Krugman, prices have come down. You are lying to pretend otherwise. The reason there is a connection is something the Democrats themselves originally recognized; there are people speculating on oil futures, but the Democrats lied and tried to claim it was Big Oil doing that, rather than crowds of individual investors and investment firms who were actually behind the pressure. When it became obvious that the Republicans were pushing for a major shift in policy, one which would significantly alter the long-term supply curve for oil to Americans, confidence on the future price for oil plummeted and present prices dropped. Simple economics, Mr. Krugman, you really should go back and take a refresher course.

- continued -

No one is saying, however, that merely talking will keep prices dropping. If the Democrats refuse to do the right thing by the American people, and they manage to keep control of the Congress in November's elections, then obviously the Krugman-style polices will go back into force and we may expect futures to shoot back up, taking present prices with them just as they did before. The need is to give American companies the long-term resources they need, and drilling on North American land is the smart way to do that. To pretend otherwise is just another Krugman lie.

Those who read through Krugman's little spit piece will no doubt notice that Krugman himself gives up on his claims just six paragraphs into his article. After that, he dredges up the Left's fave sock puppet, the 'Bush Lied to get War' falsehood. The fact that neither Bush nor the Republicans said what he claims, is no more surprising than the fact that Krugman pulls the Iraq War out of nowhere to try to scare Americans into rejecting the Energy plan. Krugman truly goes off the deep end of his short pier when he tries to claim there was a "cult of personality" about President Bush, as if the Left has not been assassinating the President's character and hoping for something more personally catastrophic to strike him, since before Bush even took office. Krugman blames Bush for Katrina, never mind Mayor Nagin's lack of planning, Governor Blanco's decision to delay asking for the National Guard's assistance, or the peculiar actions of C. Bennett Landreneau in all of that. No, Krugman is determined to blame Bush, never mind the facts, and never mind that he never bothers to explain how hurricanes are part of a national energy plan.

That's what struck me about Krugman's smears the most. I mean, from Krugman we know to expect a small mind and a bitter spirit, but the lies are so obvious, so poorly defended and so clearly delusional, that one is compelled to wonder why Krugman thought the articles worth printing? It would appear that Mr. Krugman has been made very nervous by this issue, that despite his claim that the Democrats will definitely make great gains in Congress this fall, that the man has become aware that this issue is one where Americans will not accept the trite and condescending behavior of the Democrats, that while the Republican Party damaged the trust and respect of the American people, the Democrats have managed to go one worse and cast themselves as the clear enemy of regular Americans. It is the Democrats, after all, who want to deny constitutional rights to homeowners while creating special protections and help for people here illegally. It is the Democrats, without question, who think that it is a good thing for taxes and prices to go up, and that Americans should get used to making do with less. And it is the Democrats who, when faced with a debate on energy policy and a clear, effective plan to protect jobs and savings, instead went on a five-week vacation and ordered the lights and cameras in the House of Representatives shut off in hopes of keeping the public from finding out about it. The Democrats used to be the party which stood up for the average guy and the well-being of all Americans. Now the Democrats are clearly the enemies of the family and the small business. The problem for the Democrats, is that folks are starting to figure that out for themselves, and paid hacks like Krugman are becoming more and more desperate to find lies which will hide the truth until after the election.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30908.

Comments (106)

The Department of Energy's ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

The Department of Energy's data seems to support Krugman's opinion on drilling. What data do you have that supports your opinion, DJ?

Americans should get used to making do with less

That statement is wrong, because...?

...calling the Republica... (Below threshold)
Dave:

...calling the Republican Party the "party of stupid"

If the shoe fits. McCain proved it does by mocking Obama on recomending people check their tire pressure. Only backpeddaling when experts stated it would result in saving 3 to 4 times as much oil that would be produced by offshore drilling.

<a href="http://www.cut-the... (Below threshold) DJ,If you beleive ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

DJ,

If you beleive the price id dropping because people are talking about offshore drilling then you would also beleive children with bigger feet spell better.

With 3-4 billion barrels of... (Below threshold)
Rance:

With 3-4 billion barrels of oil discovered under North Dakota (that doesn't include what may be on the Canadian side of the border), why the big push to drill offshore where you have to build huge platforms, run pipelines on the bottom of the ocean, fly your crews back-and-forth, and evacuate everybody when a storm blows up?

I do not think that the oil... (Below threshold)
Denny:

I do not think that the oil companies would drill an empty well, if they are going to drill they will drill a well that will produce oil for years. They are traded on the open market because they can make a profit. The EPA regulates them and when spills happen they make them clean it up. Look I am all for alternatives, but none are right now able to supply our present needs. Drill now and invest in the future, build better batteries that can store solar power for when it's needed, make superconductors that will transmit electricity line-loss free. Don't just say "No you cannot do it the old way, you need find a better way" and then walk away.

The EPA regulates them a... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The EPA regulates them and when spills happen they make them clean it up.

What about all of the businesses that depend on coastal waters. An oil spill can put them out of business. Does the EPA make them re-imburse people who lose their livelihoods?

Hasn't it been widely agree... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hasn't it been widely agreed (outside of right-wing stupidity outlets), that the recent fall in prices was due to worries about falling demand (you know, with consumer spending dropping in June and such), not hopes for increased supply?

Anyone got any evidence to the contrary, outside of uninformed partisan-based speculation (i.e. lying)?

Well folks, apparently Mr. ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Well folks, apparently Mr. Krugman's online persona is named "Dave" ...

Judging by the first 5 comm... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Judging by the first 5 comments, it looks like Krugman isn't the only nervous one. It's difficult to come to the realization that you may be wrong. The first step is denial.

Yes, many factors have made the price go down. We have produced more oil recently, there were a lot of sell-offs corresponding with the first day there was a major price drop, AND voices are being heard on the practicality of opening up more drilling while pursuing alternatives. Those voices are Bush lifting the executive ban, polling results on Americans indicating a majority want more drilling and are demanding that their reps listen to them, the Republicans in Congress exposing the Democrats refusal to address the more immediate concerns with anything other than TAXES! More TAXES!

With all these factors considered, the price of crude has gone down $30 in less than a month. Imagine if we weren't just talking about drilling and were actually getting started on it...

Krugman is an un-serious, p... (Below threshold)

Krugman is an un-serious, partisan, disingenuous, misrepresenting and oft-lying asshat. Always has been, always will be.

Nice substantive response, ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Nice substantive response, DJ.

As Dave pointed out, there's a shitload of oil under North Dakota. Why aren't oil companies drilling there?

Dr. Krugman has proven hims... (Below threshold)
Magic:

Dr. Krugman has proven himself over the past few years to be a moron. He often writes about things that he has NO experience with and rarely get the fact straight. He writes to those individuals that believe as he does and wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face. His arguments lack logic or cohesion and facts are a totally avoided item. He is just a hack that writes what the DNC needs written so he can continue to collect a paycheck.

Sorta just like you Peter w... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Sorta just like you Peter wouldn't you say?

Sorry "Paul" but you don't ... (Below threshold)
Mike in Oregon:

Sorry "Paul" but you don't know what you're talking about on tire inflation. Assuming a 3% gasoline savings on maybe 25% of American cars (and that's being generous because 3% is a top number), barrels of oil saved would be less than 1/10 of old estimates of probable OCS production. And that doesn't take into account ANWR, oil shale, etc. It's madness to continue send hundreds of billions of dollars per year to the Saudis and Hugo Chavez types.

Obama on recomending peo... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Obama on recomending people check their tire pressure

Obama is to tire inflation
as
Carter is to cardigan sweater

Has anyone else noticed tha... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Has anyone else noticed that most of the comments posted here against offshore drilling contain well thought out arguments, while most against just resort to insults. Including DJ's comment/insult.

Hypie -They ... (Below threshold)
JLawsonn:

Hypie -

They are drilling in N. Dakota, hadn't you noticed?

As far as drilling elsewhere goes, are you familiar with the phrase "You shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket"?

Let's go for the Paris Hilton plan! Drill early, drill often, and work on alternatives at the same time. You can ALWAYS cap a well when the product is no longer needed - but it takes time and money to find it in the first place.

Mike in Oregon -It... (Below threshold)
JLawsonn:

Mike in Oregon -

It really does make you wonder why the Democrats are working so hard to block drilling here in the US, preferring to send the money overseas. After all, isn't the mantra that Bush is in collusion with ME oil exporters? They've tried hard to stick it to Bush on darn near everything else - yet they're strangely reluctant to do so on oil...

Isn't that peculiar? It's almost like they were getting kickbacks or something...

Actually Dave, no they don'... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Actually Dave, no they don't. They do not address the crisis, the childish refusal by Democrats to even debate the GOP proposal (cue Monty Python knights yelling 'run away! run away!), or the strange attempt by Krugman to tie the energy policy debate to old worn-out we-hate-Bush slogans. They attack, but do not advance the discussion, except that such behavior kind of proves my point.

But go ahead and spout your non-seqiturs. We adults know how important self-esteem is to liberals and other immature people.

As Dave pointed out, the... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:

As Dave pointed out, there's a shitload of oil under North Dakota. Why aren't oil companies drilling there?

If oil comanies are as greedy as the left has labled them haven't you answered your own question?

Um... no?Anyway, w... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Um... no?

Anyway, what if there was enough oil in ANWR to allow the U.S. to drive its economy with the stuff for the next 1000 years? What incentive would there be to develop alternative fuels then?

Painful necessity drives innovation a lot more rapidly than curiosity does. I'd like to see gas prices hit $5/gallon, to be honest. So long as gas is affordable, energy policy will be status quo, and that's a bad thing.

Sorta just like you Pete... (Below threshold)

Sorta just like you Peter wouldn't you say?

4 year olds have better retorts.

So then I assume your 10yo.... (Below threshold)
JFO:

So then I assume your 10yo. posted the "adult"comment under your name?

hyper: "and that's a bad... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

hyper: "and that's a bad thing"

Because you say so?

And no, you're quite wrong. Consider coal and kerosene, for example. In the 19th century those fuels were very popular, but by 1920 they had been effectively replaced by oil, even though - and this is the important part - the price of coal and kerosene did not rise very much. You see, oil was a better fuel for more reasons than just price - it was more efficient, easier to store, more versatile, and it was cleaner-burning. Oil did not become available because Congress punished people for using coal and kerosene, it was developed and marketed by people who recognized and pointed out its advantages.

Oil will be replaced when a more effective and efficient energy source is presented and proven, not because some some government thinks it can make reality change by ordering people and business hurt because of a lie (Global Warming) or a bigger lie (drilling here will not help).

And btw, if your side can make its case, why did they run away and try to shut down the cameras?

the childish refusal by ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

the childish refusal by Democrats to even debate the GOP proposal

Are you serious? Were you so up in arms over the number of times the GOP refused to even debate Democratic proposals?

cue Monty Python knights yelling 'run away! run away!

Ah, the way DJ ran away! ran away! from the request to provide any data that supports his opinion.

DJ,The reason repu... (Below threshold)
Dave:

DJ,

The reason republicans are becoming known as the "Party of Studid" is because of comments like Global Warming is a lie.

The absence of proof of Glo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

The absence of proof of Global Warming all these years tends to make us cynical, Dave.

And the Democrats have no proposals, Brian. Excluding paranoid blame-Big-Oil and raise-taxes schemes. I am unaware of a single Dmeocrat plan to lower gasoline prices at the pump, even though that was a key promise of Pelosi in 2006.

Sorry "Paul" but you don... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Sorry "Paul" but you don't know what you're talking about on tire inflation.

Actually, Mike, you don't.

According to the Department of Energy, underinflated tires alone cost the country more than 1.25 billion gal. of gasoline annually--roughly 1 percent of the total consumption of 142 billion gal. According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, published by the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would increase domestic production of crude oil by only about 1 percent.
"Anyway, what if there ... (Below threshold)
Churt:

"Anyway, what if there was enough oil in ANWR to allow the U.S. to drive its economy with the stuff for the next 1000 years? What incentive would there be to develop alternative fuels then?" --hyperbolist

Actually there is a good chance that alternatives will become cheaper to produce and more profitable than drilling for oil. The market will handle the rest. And quite honestly if drilling oil continues to be the most efficient and economical way to produce the energy we need then that's fine as well. Considering global warming alarmist arguments are collapsing and the hard drive for alternative fuels is not that important I really don't see the issue any more.

"Has anyone else noticed that most of the comments posted here against offshore drilling contain well thought out arguments, while most against just resort to insults. Including DJ's comment/insult."--Dave

Actually, the comments against drilling have been pathetic and "republicans are big dummy" rants. I've seen nothing mentioned that would cast DJ's original post as inaccurate. Your comment to the contrary is intellectually dishonest at best.

I am unaware of a single... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I am unaware of a single Dmeocrat plan to lower gasoline prices at the pump

And I'm unaware of a single Republican one. The DOE says that offshore drilling will have almost no impact, and I assume you don't advocate nationalizing the oil companies, so you must be referring to something else.

Hyper's comment struck me a... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Hyper's comment struck me as a not so "well thought out argument".

"That statement is wrong, because...?"

Consumption IS down, tool. People ARE conserving. We HAVE made adjustments. But wait until this winter when millions find they have to do without many things just to stay warm. Hyper's solution = raise the price even higher and suck it up, Americans! Better yet, move, so you can walk. After all Goodwill has coats real cheap.

Brian: "I'm unaware of a... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Brian: "I'm unaware of a single Republican one."

Thank you, Brian. That lie continues to prove my point. You do not agree that drilling wil lower prices, but that does not mean the plan does not exist. You are caught, sir, arguing about a plan which you have also claimed not to know about.


"The DOE says that offshore drilling will have almost no impact"

An anonymous, unsupported source? Please. The people in the business say different, and they have a record of knowing what they are talking about, as opposed to government. And btw, to just what do you attribute the steady and significant decline in oil and gasoline prices in the past three weeks? Hint: It's not Obama's air meter.


"and I assume you don't advocate nationalizing the oil companies, so you must be referring to something else."

Returning to the trusty non-seqitur, I see. Well, when neither logic nor the facts are on your side, I suppose the urge to 'go Pelosi" must become all but irresistable ...

For our "no drill" friends,... (Below threshold)
Doc:

For our "no drill" friends, what will you do when:

*Gas is $10/gallon (cue Ken Salazar)

*Wheat and corn are $25/bushel. Peas and beans jump 200% AND beef & pork prices increase proportionately. (IF the farmers can survice the 500% jump in fertilizer and herbicide costs. If not, the prices go higher)

*Vehicle tires are $300 each. You didn't believe tires are entirely made of rubber do you?

*Your wife's cosmetics cost $100/month.

*What about the price of heating oil. Especially the effect on those on fixed incomes and the poor you always proclaim to champion.

*Building a home? Awwhhh the cost of all the carpeting, polymer plumbing, plastic light switches, wire insulation won't change much....lol

*Don't plan on having your street repaved anytime soon. Asphalt prices have already doubled in the last 6 months. And forget the new roof on the house.

*EVERY appliance, automobile, and chemical you hope to buy will cost you more because the converstion costs (raw materials and energy to convert) have inflated along with oil.

All this so a shiek can buy a ruby encrusted porsche. Anyone watch the 60 Minutes piece on Dubai last Sunday?

And for Dave, I can tell you as a retired engineer and university professor that tire inflation equating to 3 or 4 times the oil produced by offshore drilling is preposterous. An underinflated tire contributes to "rolling" or dynamic resistance in the vehicle. The effect of a 15mph headwind (added to the "normal" aerodynamic resistance) quickly swamps any savings by inflating the tires properly. Although proper inflation is clearly a safety and tire wear issue.

Here's a challenge for you. I doubt you have the mathematical or engineering background to properly rebut me so here's a chance to prove me wrong. With your tires fully inflated to the tire manufacturere's recommended pressure drive your vehicle such that you consume 5 tanks of fuel. Calculate the mpg. Now reduce the pressure in each tire by 10%. Drive such that you consume 5 more tanks of gas and then compare the fuel mileage to what you got previously.

Give it a try. OR you could just listen to all the asshats telling you what you want to hear. Your choice

Hyper's solution =... (Below threshold)
Hyper's solution = raise the price even higher and suck it up, Americans!

Yeah, and hear I was thinking that these self-styled "progressives" were all about aiding the little guy and helping poor people. Apparently, that's not the case. They're just hypocrites.

The absence of proof of ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The absence of proof of Global Warming all these years tends to make us cynical.

What kind of proof are you looking for?

It's not like you can put the earth in a test tube and perform an experiment on it.

You do not agree that dr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You do not agree that drilling wil lower prices, but that does not mean the plan does not exist.

Drilling will not lower prices, as stated by Bush's own Dept. of Energy. Therefore, the Republicans have no plan to lower gas prices, as I accurately stated. It seems you'd rather veer off topic to try to catch me in some semantic faux pax than stay on the issue.

But if you're going to argue that all you require is a stated plan, then it is you who were the liar first for ignoring the Democrats' plan.

An anonymous, unsupported source?

Yeah, because the Bush DOE is known for publishing official research reports shooting holes in Republican positions and that are written by anonymous, unsupported sources.

Well, when neither logic nor the facts are on your side, I suppose the urge to 'go Pelosi" must become all but irresistable ...

Well, if and when that situation arises, I assure you that I'll give full consideration to your standard "ignore the facts and just hurl insults" approach.

"It's not like you can p... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"It's not like you can put the earth in a test tube and perform an experiment on it."

Bingo!!!

Can't put it in a computer either.

Dave, it's your contention,... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Dave, it's your contention, screaming louder and longer does not prove zip. I am under no obligation to comply with a demand based on an unproven theory.

And Brain? You're ducking more than Daffy in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Back to the point, the GOP has a plan up for debate right now, and your guys run away rather than debate it, while your side - who promised gas under $2 a gallon in 2006 in order to gain control of Congress, has made no ptoprosal.

Sucks for you.

The effect of a 15mph he... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The effect of a 15mph headwind (added to the "normal" aerodynamic resistance) quickly swamps any savings by inflating the tires properly.

Doc,

I'm afraid you get a failing grade on this one. A driver is just as likely to have a 15mph tailwind that will increase the cars MPG. Because a driver is just as likely to get an increase as a descrease in MPG due to wind, the net effects will be zero.

Doc's Grade - F-

So much for Dave's reading ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

So much for Dave's reading comprehension. Doc's point was that energy consumption and resistance (or friction, if you will) are not relevant for mathematical comparisons.

Doc still gets an A, Dave is still wearing the dunce cap, or as we know it, the 'Krugman Krown'.

I am under no obligation... (Below threshold)
Dave:

I am under no obligation to comply with a demand based on an unproven theory.

DJ,

No your not, just don't be suprised as more and more people start refering to you as the "Party of the Dumb". Their never will be 100% proof, but the best evidence and scientific minds have concluded global warming is real and CO2 is the leading cause.

And Brain? You're duckin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And Brain? You're ducking more than Daffy in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

You're right, I'll try not to provide links to reports that substantiate my statements, and instead just act all indignant and pouty like you.

while your side - who promised gas under $2 a gallon in 2006

Wait a minute... you are caught, sir, arguing about a plan which you have also claimed not to know about!

The Dems' plan may not have had much effect on prices, I'll grant you that. But what do you want to do... argue about whose ineffective plan is typed up nicer?

Besides, your claim is false. It's actually your side who is promising $2/gallon gas from drilling. To his credit, even McCain acknowledges that drilling will have nothing more than a psychological impact.

Oh, and Obama has said he'll compromise on drilling to support the Gang of 10's plan. McCain said he won't compromise on taxes. Who's the obstruction now, hmm?

Sucks for you more.

I'm sorry Brian, did or did... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I'm sorry Brian, did or did not gas prices fall just after we started this debate?

Geez, what planet are you on?

But if you don't take it fr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But if you don't take it from me, don't take it from the DOE, don't take it from McCain, then how about if you take it from the White House itself:

... there's not a real good short-term answer. And we've been very explicit about that from the beginning.

...
There's not going to be a short-term response, and it would be irresponsible for anybody to suggest there would be.

DJ, they're talking to you.

A couple of points about GO... (Below threshold)

A couple of points about GOM drilling versus drilling in the upper mid west and southwest....Drilling in the Gulf is not some pie in the sky panacea for domestic energy problems.

Domestic oil companies approach these massive, high risk capital projects with a risk/return analysis as to whether they should move forward. Sometimes they are wrong.

Exxon recently abandoned the Blackbeard project after spending almost $200,000,000 on what appears to be a dry hole.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS153502+03-Apr-2008+PNW20080403

Freeport-McMoRan Energy just took over the project to drill deeper (32,000 feet....anyone in this thread that understands drilling will recognize that that is an extraordinary risk financially). The point: opening up more off shore drilling is NOT a sure thing for the oil companies.

DJ,Doc's point ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

DJ,

Doc's point was that energy consumption and resistance (or friction, if you will) are not relevant for mathematical comparisons.

It's only irrelevant if you consider a savings of 9,448 million barrels a year irrelevant. That is how much we could save by reducing tire friction.


DJ, go stand in the corner with DOC!

It's only irrelevant ... (Below threshold)

It's only irrelevant if you consider a savings of 9,448 million barrels a year irrelevant. That is how much we could save by reducing tire friction.

Ok, I'll bite. Where does that number come from?

So much for Dave'... (Below threshold)
Dave:


So much for Dave's reading comprehension. Doc's point was that energy consumption and resistance (or friction, if you will) are not relevant for mathematical comparisons.


If their's a physics 101 student here, please explain to DJ the effects of resistance are real, and it does impact a cars MPG. He and Doc are confused on this.

Dave....why not take the te... (Below threshold)
Doc:

Dave....why not take the test?

Of course my point was that the rolling resistance impact of an under-inflated tire is NEGLIGIABLE when comapred to other contributing factors such as head winds, etc. If you'd read my post with an honest and open mind it would have been obvious.

Once again, why not take the test?

Or is it easier to bloviate about something you have little experience in and rely on others to spoon feed you the info?

Take the test.....

HughS,I grabbed th... (Below threshold)
Dave:

HughS,

I grabbed the wrong figure out of my spreadsheet(doing too many things at once). Its 225 million barrels/year not 7,519.

Here is how I calculated it:

/business/18148539.html" target="_blank">The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) this month predicted that U.S. consumption will drop by 1 percent this year, to 20.6 million barrels of oil per day.

20.6 million barrels * 365 days/year = 7,519 million barrels/year

7,519 million barrels * .03 = 225 million barrels

.03 represents a 3% reduction in consumption

Brian: "offshore drilling w... (Below threshold)
Mike in Oregon:

Brian: "offshore drilling would increase domestic production of crude oil by only about 1 percent". Sorry, but domestic production is something like 7-8 million barrels per day. OCS alone could produce something like 1 million barrels per day, with is more like a 13-15 percent increase. And that doesn't include ANWR or oil shale. What is it about hundreds of billions of dollars per year leaving America for places like Saudi Arabia that you like and want to continue?

Dave....why not take the... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Dave....why not take the test?

Don't own a car, ride a motorcycle.

DOC & DJ,THere hav... (Below threshold)
Dave:

DOC & DJ,

THere have been numerouse studies that confirm proper tire pressure = better mpg

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2001/08/29/028414.html

How many studies will I have to post before you start beleiving. That seems to be the problem with republicans. They do not beleive scientific studies. And you wonder why people are calling you the "Party of the Dumb"
depp=true
notiz=I'm tired of your broadbrushing, Mr.Shortlist

Doc brings up a very good p... (Below threshold)

Doc brings up a very good point. Petroleum permeates our economy in myriad ways.

Besides gasoline, one can just look around the house for its other byproducts: carpets, fabrics, plastics (which brings to mind that great line from the movie "The Graduate"....I have just one word for you...), cosmetics.

Then there are tires (anyone noticed that you can't find tires for yellow iron right now? That's CAT, Komatsu and JD equipment for the uninitiated),household supplies, fertilizer (not just Miracle Grow, but the heavy bulk stuff used by commercial farmers) and the list goes on.

.03 represents a 3% r... (Below threshold)

.03 represents a 3% reduction in consumption

Where does that number come from?

Oyster, I know consu... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Oyster, I know consumption is down. And it's continuing to drop. Would it continue to trend like that if gas prices dropped? Probably not. So three cheers for $4-5/gal. gas, for bicycles, for light rail infrasctructure investment, for alternative fuels, and for climate change deniers being brushed aside by the heavy hand of the market.

If there is a lot of oil to be had in restricted areas, anyone who thinks the energy companies would do their best to develop alternative fuel technologies is delusional. When people are screaming for relief from high fuel prices, the first company to produce a viable alternative will reap the rewards, and rightly so. This isn't a crisis, it's the beginning of something magnificent.

And remember, DJ has yet to produce anything to substantiate his original assertion that drilling will offset the rise in the price of crude, especially in the long term. Still waiting...

The calculations of the "ti... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

The calculations of the "tire gage people" crack me up. They assume no one is checking the tires now which may be true for the Al Gore types out there but not for most conservatives.

Next the left will tell us not to leave our windows and doors open while having the AC/heater on. This is what they are calling a solution to the oil prices. Please.

OCS alone could produce ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

OCS alone could produce something like 1 million barrels per day, with is more like a 13-15 percent increase.

Not according to the DoE.

What is it about hundreds of billions of dollars per year leaving America for places like Saudi Arabia that you like and want to continue?

Nothing at all. Do you have a plan to stop it? Because letting the US oil companies drill for more oil that they can sell to China doesn't seem like it will be very effective. Unless you want to nationalize the oil companies (but DJ says that's a non sequitur).

On the other hand, US consumption is down about 860,000 barrels per day so far this year. This is over four times what the DoE says that OCS drilling will provide us in 2030.

THAT'S where our focus should be.

The calculations of the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The calculations of the "tire gage people" crack me up. They assume no one is checking the tires now

Yet another person who doesn't bother to do his own checking before making factless statements.

Fully 27 percent of passenger cars on U.S. roadways are driven with one or more substantially under-inflated tires, according to a major survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).


Moreover, 32 percent of light trucks (including sport utility vehicles, vans and pickup trucks) are driven with one or more substantially under-inflated tires, according to the first study of its kind to be conducted by the government in two decades.

Don't any of you people know how to use Google? Or are you just scared to?

Here are a couple of facts ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Here are a couple of facts to drop into this furball and see if they make any difference.

Oil price is established by supply and demand as well as speculation. Speculation is a prediction of future supply and demand. More future supply offsets an equivalent future demand. Drilling offshore creates more future supply. Also, drilling offshore offsets disruption in foreign oil production areas. The result is more stable oil prices over time.

Even if drilling offshore doesn't reduce oil prices, it does directly reduce the imbalance in trade. For every barrel of oil produced in America there's one less barrel that needs to be imported. Less money going overseas the better the economy tends to be.

Offshore oil production platforms in the U.S. have a lower oil spill risk than importing the equivalent amount of oil by tankers. Thus, offshore drilling actually reduces the risk of major oil spills.

Oil from North Dakota has even more benefits, but it's not enough to replace all the oil we import from overseas. As long as we are importing any oil from outside North America we should drill within our own territory wherever there's oil.

And of course we should still do nuclear, wind, solar, and electric passenger transportation. The future is more energy per capita, not less.

HBHigh gasoline pric... (Below threshold)

HB
High gasoline prices are just the tip of the iceberg as it relates to US consumer costs.

There is no alternative energy product that can replace petroleum in the near term. Total BTU usage from petroleum products dominates the US economy. Your "three cheers" for higher gas prices means higher heating oil prices and every down stream petroleum by-product in the supply chain. Have you given thought to the scale of that market? As you live in a country that is a net exporter of crude oil it is probably easy for you to make such remarks. Think about that.

An example of the problem the US faces with the spike in crude can be found in microcosm with ethanol. Corn price increases have wrought havoc in the domestic economy because of the price increases in corn by products downstream....dairy, beef, sweeteners, and processed foods to name just a few.

Your "three cheers" is an insult to American consumers. We can argue all day about consumer behavior modification but that will not alleviate the economic hardship faced by Americans today as a result of high energy costs.

Yet another person... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Yet another person who doesn't bother to do his own checking before making factless statements.

The study was from 2001 and one of it's recommendations was mandatory tire pressure monitoring devices. Well, many 2007 and all 2008 passenger cars have such monitors as do 2008 vans and light trucks. That means the solution was in place long before Obama made it a centerpiece of his energy plan.

Also the study didn't say of the low tire was the spare or not. Also the study didn't make an estimate as to the mileage effect. The study found that older cars were more likely to have low tire pressure, but that could be because those older cars weren't driven as much. Overall, the study was designed to assess risk, not mileage, and as such, it's inadequate to base an energy policy on.

Here's an interesting comparison.

Dave:Doc... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Dave:

Doc,

I'm afraid you get a failing grade on this one. A driver is just as likely to have a 15mph tailwind that will increase the cars MPG. Because a driver is just as likely to get an increase as a descrease in MPG due to wind, the net effects will be zero.

Doc's Grade - F-

Sorry Dave, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The effects of wind drag on a vehicle aren't linear.

In short, a head wind will hurt your fuel economy more than an equivalent tail wind will help.

Brian,>On the othe... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Brian,

>On the other hand, US consumption is down about 860,000 barrels per day so far this year.

>THAT'S where our focus should be.

Yep, lets continue lowering our standard of living. I know you're a good little socialist, and want a lower standard of living for everyone.

Sorry, but I prefer a rising standard of living, time to start drilling!

Brian #60,>Don't a... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Brian #60,

>Don't any of you people know how to use Google? Or are you just scared to?

Can't you use google to find any more current data than 2001 and 2003? Or even studies that haven't been refuted by others? Lots of studies have been done since then. Technology has changed since then (even though you don't like it).

Mac #61 and 63,Gre... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Mac #61 and 63,

Great posts! Sadly, the old adage appears true:

Facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to superman.

>The future is more energy per capita, not less.

There are 2 choices for the future:

More energy and a rising standard of living.

or

Less energy and a reduced standard of living.


I just can't understand why the left so prefers the second one? Are they really that full of self-loathing?

My vote for the first! Drill NOW and build nuclear plants.

kennySome of them ... (Below threshold)

kenny

Some of them are not ignoring reality:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/360625.html

HughS,Good article... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

HughS,

Good article, Thanks for the link.

Yes, some are starting to get it, I'd heard he'd changed his tune on Nuclear Energy a while ago, but was surprised at his comments on wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources.

Now if only some more of his former greenpeacers would get it....

My goodness, if we're losin... (Below threshold)

My goodness, if we're losing a 1 billion+BBL of oil per year thanks to under-inflated tires, then by golly we'd better form The Department of Under-Inflated Tires to oversee and fix the problem, pronto!

Naturally at most gas stations these days you have to pay .35-.50 cents to use the air pump, so we better offer subsidies to the poor and seniors and families who earn less $50K per year. No wait, $80K.

kennyYou have to w... (Below threshold)

kenny

You have to wonder what that cost him....fifteen to twenty years ago nuclear was viewed by the left as the ultimate environmental sin.

My goodness, if we're... (Below threshold)

My goodness, if we're losing a 1 billion+BBL of oil per year thanks to under-inflated tires

Peter
I'm still looking for the source of the ever elusive 3% quoted in Dave's #51 above.

Any ideas?

PeterI'm still lo... (Below threshold)

Peter
I'm still looking for the source of the ever elusive 3% quoted in Dave's #51 above.

Any ideas?

Hmm, if I said where that might get me in trouble with Maggie.

Kidding aside, I have no clue what he's even talking about in that post. If his link was functional,maybe we'd have some idea?

If there is a lot... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
If there is a lot of oil to be had in restricted areas, anyone who thinks the energy companies would do their best to develop alternative fuel technologies is delusional.

Have you ever worked for an energy company?
Are you affiliated with an energy company?
Where in the world did you come up with this
perspective? The oil companies for years have
been involved in alternate energy technology.
And lowering the living standards of Americans
is not going to raise those in developing
countries.

Sorry Dave, but you don'... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Sorry Dave, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The effects of wind drag on a vehicle aren't linear.

In short, a head wind will hurt your fuel economy more than an equivalent tail wind will help.

Mike, DOC, & DJ;

Actually, the effects of window do nothing to negate the increase in gas mileage due to maintaining proper tire pressure; that is the original argument.

Scenario
1. Two identical cars are driving side by side.
2. They each are driving against a head wind.
3. One car has their tires under-inflated.

Both cars would have a reduction in MPG due to the headwind.

However, the car with under-inflated tires would still get roughly 3% less MPG then the other.

The study was from 2001 ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The study was from 2001 and one of it's recommendations was mandatory tire pressure monitoring devices. Well, many 2007 and all 2008 passenger cars have such monitors as do 2008 vans and light trucks. That means the solution was in place long before Obama made it a centerpiece of his energy plan.

Except that a) what percentage of cars on the road are 2007 and 2008 models? and b) most tire-pressure monitoring systems were designed for safety (as you noted) and only register a warning if one tire is more than 20 lbs. below another tire. That makes them wholly ineffective for notifying you when your tires are slightly underinflated.

Also the study didn't say of the low tire was the spare or not.

Oh, c'mon. Now you're stretching.

Also the study didn't make an estimate as to the mileage effect. ... Overall, the study was designed to assess risk, not mileage, and as such, it's inadequate to base an energy policy on.

The data collected on tire inflation doesn't change depending on what analysis you care to make with it. Using collected data for one analysis doesn't make it inadequate for other analyses. I can measure how many steps you take in a day and use that data to estimate how far you walked AND ALSO how long your shoes will last.

Can't you use google to ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Can't you use google to find any more current data than 2001 and 2003?

Those were the latest ones done by the DoT. If you think you know of others, feel free to post a link.

Or even studies that haven't been refuted by others?

I wasn't aware they had been. Please post the link.

Lots of studies have been done since then.

Oh, let's see them. Post the link.

Technology has changed since then.

Yes, it has. Google has gotten a lot better at being able to find these "studies" that you claim are out there. Therefore, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to post links. We'll be waiting for you to back up your big talk.

I have worked for them indi... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I have worked for them indirectly (they are some of our most solvent, ignorant, and annoying clients), and my father (chemical engineer) helped develop the tar sands project in Alberta. So I'm not unfamiliar with the industry. I know that a) oil companies make money today selling oil, and that b) unaffordable gasoline in the United States provides an incentive for them to develop alternative fuels, whereas people happily chugging gas at $2.50/gallon creates little incentive.

Anyway, if you think expensive gas is necessarily going to reduce your standard of living, then you're pretty uncreative--and you probably live in the suburbs. Find a nice, safe city with good public transit, and you'll save money. Bike to work, play with your kids and dog in a park, buy local produce at a market on Saturdays, watch professional sports and walk home from the stadium, immerse yourself in the arts...

Nah, screw that, let's live in Scottsdale and commute an hour to work in an SUV that we can no longer afford to keep on the road! Mmm, chain restaurants in strip malls and big box stores! Heaven.

High gas prices will choke off sprawl, which is one of the ugliest and most socially destructive features of North America. So yes, three cheers.

Yep, lets continue lower... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yep, lets continue lowering our standard of living.

If that's what you want, fine for you. But I think the rest of us prefer a way to lower energy usage without lowering our standard of living. Certainly the technology exists, if anyone cared to pursue it.

I know you're a good little socialist, and want a lower standard of living for everyone.

No, just the ones who want it. Like you seem to.

Sorry, but I prefer a rising standard of living, time to start drilling!

If you think adding 1%... hell, for fun let's say 10%!... to the world oil production in 20 years is going to magically increase your standard of living, you should "increase" your living quarters to a rubber room.

Making assumptions can be f... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

Making assumptions can be fatal hyper.
I don't live in the suburbs, and I don't live
near malls, strip or otherwise.
I've owned farms for the past 30 years along
with working at Shell Oil. Thankfully I'm now
away from the chemical jockey world, taking
care of my husband who is a disabled veteran.
You can keep your bikes, and trikes, as well
as your concrete, I'll keep my sanity in the
peace and quiet of the countryside along with
all the other critters like coyotes, and
buzzards.

#71 - Hugh S"Yo... (Below threshold)

#71 - Hugh S

"You have to wonder what that cost him....fifteen to twenty years ago nuclear was viewed by the left as the ultimate environmental sin."

It still is, as far as I've been able to determine. From comments I've seen elsewhere, he is considered a complete apostate now - not to be taken seriously in his opinions by the left and to be discredited whenever possible. He's obviously been bought off - because he's changed his mind.

Unfortunatly, he's committed the unforgiveable sin for 'Progressives' - he actually researched what he was against instead of simply believing what he was supposed to, and then he thought about it and the applications of it all, and whether it would be better for the Earth than oil or gas or coal, and changed his mind.

The folks against nuclear power have no concept of the hard science behind it. They see Chernobyl, and expect nuclear power plants to blow up randomly. They don't understand how hard it was for the technicians at that plant to get it to blow - they've never bothered looking into what actually happened, and they don't realize that pretty much every safety procedure was ignored and almost all the automatic safety devices had been disconnected to do a test that didn't need to be done. (The Wiki article on the Chernobyl disaster is a pretty accurate one, wonder of wonders, with a full account of the lead-in to the accident.)

They had to work at it, and work HARD to blow up the thing. Modern reactors wouldn't blow like that, either - even something like Three-Mile Island didn't breach its containment facility. Yeah, the thing was a real mess inside, but no nuclear material escaped, and radiation exposure to the population was minimal.

But I'm talking about facts, not emotion - and the anti-nuke folks don't really care about those. Nuclear power is bad, horrible, evil, and must be stopped. Everything else is irrelevant.

Exxon recently abandoned... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Exxon recently abandoned the Blackbeard project after spending almost $200,000,000 on what appears to be a dry hole.

You mean they are spending their "windfall" profits on research and development? Gee, the Democrats keep making me think they are all rolling around naked in giant piles of cash going "Mine! Mine! Mine!"

Fancy that.

Dave....why not take the... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Dave....why not take the test?

Don't own a car, ride a motorcycle.

So what? Motorcycles consume petrol as well.

Yet another person who d... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Yet another person who doesn't bother to do his own checking before making factless statements.

Your article talks about safety factors involved in underinflated tyres. Your article is irrelevant to the subject at hand (milage savings). Don't you know how to google?

And remember, DJ has yet... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

And remember, DJ has yet to produce anything to substantiate his original assertion that drilling will offset the rise in the price of crude, especially in the long term. Still waiting...

I suppose he could, you would still find some sort of excuse to pooh-pooh it.

Fine, then:

You can search for a paper by R. Morris Coats and Gary Pecquet, titled "The Effect of Opening up ANWR to Drilling on the Current Price of Oil" These two are economists at Nicholls State University in Louisiana who in their research paper assert just that.

The paper was sent in to The Energy Journal, but was rejected. Why?

James Smith, the editor of The Energy Journal described it this way to the unfortunate authors:

"Basically, your main result (the present impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee). It is our policy to publish only original research that adds significantly to the body of received knowledge regarding energy markets and policy."

Unfortunatly, the paper itself is located at at website that seems to be having server problems.

Nevertheless, there is your much-ballyhooed assertion. Not that you really care or anything, you'll ignore it anyway.

Oh, and here's the rejectio... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Oh, and here's the rejection letter itself:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/newt/public/Newsletter072408_rejectionletter.pdf

In fact, the effects have been known since the 1960s according to the letter.

Mike, nice try. Cl... (Below threshold)
Doc:

Mike, nice try.

Clearly Dave has it all figured out. Right up the the 3%! btw, where'd you get that # Dave? I'll bet not from the SAE

Dave....why... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Dave....why not take the test?

Don't own a car, ride a motorcycle.

So what? Motorcycles consume petrol as well.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
James,

You don't know what we are talking about. Doc suggested I under-inflate my tires to test how it effects MPG; an idea I find intriging. However, for safety reason's I won't under-inflate the tires on my motorcycle.

Your article talks about... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Your article talks about safety factors involved in underinflated tyres. Your article is irrelevant to the subject at hand (milage savings). Don't you know how to google?

The article talks about measuring inflation levels and then interpreting them in the context of safety. I cited the article in response to a post that incorrectly dismissed underinflation numbers as insignificant. Regardless of the analysis performed on the data gathered, the raw data itself remains unchanged.

Yet another instance where you waltz into an thread, misinterpret the conversation, and make an irrelevant statement as if it were useful.

Don't you know how to read?

You can search for a pap... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You can search for a paper by R. Morris Coats and Gary Pecquet, titled "The Effect of Opening up ANWR to Drilling on the Current Price of Oil"

Ah, yes. A research paper that contains phrases like "everyone knows that", and cites the Democratic Policy Committee as its target right in its abstract. Sounds very objective and scientific to me!

Interestingly, the Bush DoE has concluded something quite different.

Those damn liberal socialists in the Bush administration!

By the way, here's the main... (Below threshold)
Brian:

By the way, here's the main point of that paper you're relying on:

we use simple two-period models to show that if an amount of newly discovered oil is significant enough to reduce prices in the future, any drop in future prices reduces the future profitability of oil, reducing the marginal user costs of oil now.

Well, duh! No wonder The Energy Journal said they're adding nothing new! Of course, if significant amounts are discovered, that will affect prices. Their problem is that no one, not even the DoE, claims there will anything close to significant amounts found. Unless you think that reducing a barrel of oil by $.75 20 years from now is a significant future reduction.

Aw, feel better now, DJ? I ... (Below threshold)
brentstark86 Author Profile Page:

Aw, feel better now, DJ? I assume your "article" was a kind of perverse public therapy, since it was mostly a jumble of emotionally-charged adjectives. Dank. Dreary. Failed. Pathetic. Ignorant. Let it all out, DJ, let it all out.

I hope you are not deluded enough to believe that your rant produced any substantive arguments. Remember, your assertions disagree with the findings of the Department of Energy (really smart people who something about science), so maybe you should, uh, cite a scientific source?

My favorite moment of your rant was when you described an internationally-acclaimed economist as "a small mind and bitter spirit." It was classic irony. You reached into your grab bag of insults and picked a couple that apply perfectly to yourself!

Ah, yes. A research pape... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Ah, yes. A research paper that contains phrases like "everyone knows that", and cites the Democratic Policy Committee as its target right in its abstract. Sounds very objective and scientific to me!

That wasn't in the paper, that was in the rejection letter from the Journal. Do try to keep up. Furthermore, the journal and the IAEE are an international group with 70 nations in it's organization. In addition, Hyper didn't ask for "objective" or "scientific"...he wanted an assertion, he got one. Besides, I wouldn't trust yours or his definitions of "scientific" anyway (after the things I've read here regarding Global Warming)

By the way, here's the main point of that paper you're relying on:

I'm not relying on a point. I'm simply doing what was asked, citing an assertion opposite to Hyper's:

Well, duh! No wonder The Energy Journal said they're adding nothing new!

Nothing new to the conclusion that they reached (i.e. more oil, lower prices), per the letter:

"Basically, your main result (the present
impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although
perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee). If Hotelling didn't exactly spell this out in his original article, certainly Herfindahl and others had done so by the 1960s."

Unless you think that reducing a barrel of oil by $.75 20 years from now is a significant future reduction.

That's if their presumed yield predictions are correct, or that current oil market practices remain the same. A big if.

By the way, define for us your (or DoE's) definition of "significant".

Of course, we are only talking about one source of oil here. ANWR alone may or may not reduce prices here. Combine that with increased drilling offshore, and in other places...

Anyway, Hyper asked for an assertion, Hyper got one. So now you have one report that possibly supports your position, and one that possibly doesn't. Doesn't mean you are any more right than the economists.

------------------------------------------

As for me, personally, ANWR is not exactly rich thriving land, it's barren and tundra, and I see no real reason for not exploring it, especially since it appears that most Alaskans are (and have been in favour) of it for some time. I'm also in favour in continuing offshore and other forms of exploration, as well as the renewal of nuclear power (hey, if it's good enough for France...). Sure, go ahead and continue to develop alternate fuels, but frankly unless they can get the costs of these alternatives down to a reasonably scale, or increase the energy output of them, I shan't hold much hope for them.

Anyway, I'll leave you and DJ et al to continue the debate. I'm gonna flight sim. :)

I always get a chuckle out ... (Below threshold)

I always get a chuckle out of listening as a Canadian condescends to lecture their neighbor to the south about lifestyles and personal choices such as living in the suburbs, shopping at malls and driving to work.

Of course Americans such relocate to the cities and abandon the suburbs! Why didn't I think of that? How creative. That lifestyle change could be accomplished in, what, fifty years? And the highway infrastructure that connects many of the outlying communities could just be abandoned as we watch our favorite sports teams in town and walk home from the game. That's brilliant. Gone are the petty bourgeois chain stores and strip malls...to hell with those. We'll use the local markets that spring up after the government nationalizes and dismantles Wal-Mart, Target, TJ Maxx and Sears. That's right, choke off that sprawl because it's ugly and destroys the social fabric. We're just a bunch of Philistines, right? To hell with Scottsdale. Solving that problem will be simple....turn off the water and let them dry up and die.

Or perhaps we could try something else. Since Canada exists only as a result of the benevolence of its neighbor, the US could save around 1,500,000,000,000 (that's trillion) by imposing a Safety and Security Tax on Canada so that Canadian citizens can sleep well at night knowing they will not be at war with, say, the Russians any time soon (who are presently imposing their will on Georgia). Canadians need not fear a "Kuwait moment" when a crazy neighbor covets its energy assets.

I like this idea better because I get to keep my petty bourgeois strip mall suburban lifestyle while my neighbor to the north actually pays for the security that Americans have provided for decades out of their own pockets via taxes. I know, it smells like a protection racket and looks like a shakedown, but it is creative. And it will only cost the Canadians 100% of their GDP. But I'm sure they can get creative and find ways to feed themselves. Perhaps they can move out of the cities and farm small plots of land.


Except that a) wha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Except that a) what percentage of cars on the road are 2007 and 2008 models? and b) most tire-pressure monitoring systems were designed for safety (as you noted) and only register a warning if one tire is more than 20 lbs. below another tire. That makes them wholly ineffective for notifying you when your tires are slightly underinflated.

The point is that the fix is in to prevent people driving around with underinflated tires. The trigger point of the pressure monitors is 8 to 10 lb, not 20 lbs. Within that range the rolling resistance of radial tires only moderately increases.

The data collected on tire inflation doesn't change depending on what analysis you care to make with it. Using collected data for one analysis doesn't make it inadequate for other analyses.

But it's useless if they didn't collect all the needed data. All the study was designed to determine was the prevalence of vehicles with at least one underinflated tire. To relate that to an effect on fuel economy you also need to know how many tires were underinflated and by how much. Even with that data you need to know how many miles a given car would be driven in that condition. The study you cited was inadequate for your purpose. Find a better study.

I can measure how many steps you take in a day and use that data to estimate how far you walked AND ALSO how long your shoes will last.

You also need to know my weight, the types of surfaces I walk on, the types of shoes I have, and how many pairs of shoes I have. You're off your game Brian.

Hugh, you're hilarious. We'... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Hugh, you're hilarious. We've done just fine in conflicts that had any relevance to ourselves, so the notion that we're somehow dependent on our neighbours for defence is a figment of your imagination. Having an open society with a high standard of living doesn't require aggressive foreign policy. Regardless, our soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting the people who aided and abetted the 9/11 hijackers, and we also sent troops to the Gulf during the first war against Saddam (the one that made sense to people outside of the United States). So, you know, you're welcome.

Anyway, high fuel prices will lead to better urban planning (less sprawl). Better planning creates better communities (tighter social fabric and better climate for small businesses) and a cleaner environment. Doesn't have to be cities--there are smart and stupid ways of laying out towns, too.

So yes, you're being dragged kicking and screaming into the future, but you'll eventually grow to like it.

James: as for nuclear power, anybody who opposes it is ignorant or paranoid or both. Power plants that burn coal certainly harm people and the environment, whereas nuclear power plants have done so, but not plants that utilise current technology. Until the next best thing comes along, nuclear power plants should be constructed en masse. Opponents of nuclear power are not serious people.

Lets say drilling in ANWR p... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lets say drilling in ANWR produces 1 million barrels of oil a day and lets say it has no effect on oil prices, which could easily be $150 a barrel in a few years (or a few weeks if a hurricane damages rigs in the gulf). That works out to 55 billion a year. Even if the oil from ANWR goes to Japan, it's still 55 billion dollars less money pouring out of the US every year. It's the 700 billion per year we now send overseas for oil that's weakening our economy. Regardless of price every barrel of oil we produce domestically is one less we have to pay some foreign nation for. It's not just ANWR, we should also drill off the east and west costs for the same reason.

The Democrats have been blocking US oil drilling for over 30 years with the same old argument that it won't effect the price anytime soon. That argument is short sighted and ignores the impact that large trade deficits have on our economy. We need to move beyond the Democrat's failed energy policies of the past. It's time for positive change. It's time to vote out the bums who stand in the way of energy and economic progress.

Agreed, Mac! Time to break ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Agreed, Mac! Time to break ground on a few dozen nuclear plants.

Oh, if only it were so easy... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Oh, if only it were so easy, Hypie.

Just mention the possibility, and the anti-nuke folks get ready to call their lawyers. With all the legal delays, they can push things off a good decade, and rack up billions of dollars in delays.

France gets 80%+ of their electricity from nuclear power - China's getting ready to mass produce nuclear power plants, but WE can't do it, and dare not even THINK about it, or our environmentalists start running around screaming.

But just remember - they think they're 'progressive'.

Hyperbolist - re your comme... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyperbolist - re your comment in #96 -

"Opponents of nuclear power are not serious people."

I beg to differ - they see themselves as being very, very serious indeed, almost to the point where it's a holy calling or quest to defeat the evil of US nuclear plants. Might not make much sense to want to actually cut down on our electric supply - but it's important to them that NO nuclear plants are built because the consequences of that are far worse.

HBActually I like ur... (Below threshold)

HB
Actually I like urban living but with a house full of kids it's a more difficult prposition. Once they're out of the house though, I won't have to be dragged kicking and screaming back to town :)....but I will have to sell my beloved lawnmower.

Does anyone but me think "d... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Does anyone but me think "dave" is dumb as dirt?

My dad and his siblings (8 ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

My dad and his siblings (8 of them--they didn't grow up in a city, that's for sure) recently tried to convince my 85 year old grandfather to move into a condo or a seniors' residence. To show them how he felt about the proposition, he bought a brand new John Deere tractor mower with which to cut his 1,500 square foot postage stamp of a lawn. Probably the funniest "F.U.!" I've ever heard of. :)

I think my distaste for rural living might have something to do with my parents making my two brothers and I cut an acre of grass every week, 7-8 months of the year, with a cheap-ass push mower. Started when I was 8 years old. "It's good for you!" Yeah? Well, now I love pavement. :)

Does anyone but me think... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Does anyone but me think "dave" is dumb as dirt?

jhow66,

You hurt my feelings. I'm gonna leave and never come back. Is that the best you can throw at me?

I have only one responce: $... (Below threshold)

I have only one responce: $3.69

That's how much unleaded (86) costs in Albuquerque right now. I think I'll fill up every two days (in cash) until it goes back above $3.75.

But... what if it doesn't?

<a href="http://www.ehponli... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Hyper's "future" for all of us. I mean really, who wouldn't want to live this way? It's always been a dream of mine....




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy