On the other hand, now and again I run into something from those who agree in large part with my conclusions regarding disruption of the climate via the products of our burning of fossil fuels that makes me slap my forehead in dismay. An example of this is a paragraph extracted from New South Wales' (Australia) "Road Users' Handbook." On page 39 of that publication, I find the following:
"SAFE DRIVING DURING SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS"
"It is anticipated that current weather patterns will progressively change and become more unpredictable as a result of climate change. Climate change is the impact on the planet due to greenhouse gas emissions which will increase global temperatures. Climate change is expected to cause unpredictable weather events and conditions such as extreme heatwaves (sic), storms, flooding and bushfires (sic). Driving during extreme weather events or conditions should be undertaken with care and caution..."
It's certainly the case that climate models and fundamental geophysical considerations indicate that severe weather events will increase in various locations because of the displacement from equilibrium in the Earth/atmosphere/ocean energy system due to our emissions of greenhouse gases.
Many, though, will regard this language as a subterfuge to insert a political agenda into a government publication that has nothing to do with the science (and political discourse) of global warming. And, to the driver encountering such conditions, what in the world does it matter to him or her what caused them? It's most emphatically not the case that extreme heatwaves, storms, flooding, and bushfires are new phenomena, only noted in the anthropocene.
Along with inane, counterproductive pieces such as "No Pressure," these sorts of needless, over the top insertions of very real concerns about climate disruption into unrelated publications add nothing and provide ammunition for those who want to point fingers and say "See? It's all a plot on the part of the one-world government manipulators to surreptitiously lead the sheeple to the slaughter." Just say no!
And finally, no such post would be complete without TEOTWAWKI:
*See, for example, this Wikipedia article or this Urban Dictionary entry for definitions of "jumping the shark."
2 comments:
Hi Arezoo, I'd read about that elsewhere and intend to publish a post about it. In general, it won't be favorable
As far as the milage indication vs. actual data, I actually posted about that back in 2012, here. In my previous vehicle and the ct200h, it's been the case that actual milage calculated by miles driven and gallons used is lower than the indication on the screen. I've even gone so far as to verify odometer mileage with gps mileage, thinking that, perhaps, the odometer records too little mileage. No such error was found though. In short, I have no explanation.
Unlike you, I haven't been resetting the mileage efficiency indicator after each fill-up. So, I'm missing those data. The indicated total average mpg is 40.2, however, my calculations return 38 mpg.
Verifying the odometer mileage with gps mileage was a very good idea.
Post a Comment