Piñata returns

i-c1c9665d7dd68924c47beade3c7d1e09-pinata.jpg

Some readers think I should use the piñata whenever I write about something silly by Tim Blair, but the rules for piñata usage are stricter than that. The rules are that it is only to be used when Blair produces another nugget of stupid after being beaten with a clue stick. For example, this post. Rex Ringschott had already explained that Blair's claim:

A 40-year-old VW Beetle produces far more pollutants per kilometre than a modern Ferrari. Monbiot is an idiot.

was only true if you ignored CO2. But Monbiot was specifically talking about greenhouse gasses:

There is a direct relationship between an engine's performance and the amount of greenhouse gases it produces: the faster the car, the quicker it cooks the planet.

It looks like Blair doesn't even know what a greenhouse gas is. For extra nuggets of stupid see the comments on Ringschott's post, with Roccoco Liberal denying the existence of the Greenhouse Effect altogether and Yobbo completely missing the point.

More like this

Remember, the piñata is only deployed when Blair produces another nugget of stupid after being beaten with a clue stick. So let's look at the nuggets we got from Blair this time: Chinatown seems not to have been burned down recently. racists generally comment behind people's backs Lambert…
Commentator 1: Hello, and welcome to a special Good Friday edition of INTELLECTUAL CAGE MATCH. Today we have a great match up for you. The topic is Global Warming and it's the collective wisdom of Tim Blair's commenters against Ryan Gwin, who is six. Commentator 2: Ooh, that's not fair.…
Julian Sanchez speculates: Given the choice between an ultimately misguided but thoughtful post, for which the aforementioned piss-taking might require some research or careful grappling with facially plausible arguments, and some hack's latest howler, a lot of us are going to find it tempting to…
On the essential Missing Link, Ken Parish links to my post of yesterday: Tim Lambert ably defends himself on scientific grounds against a concerted attack by anti-science RWDB "heavyweights". And explains the scare quotes: I wrote that extract. Blair and Bolt might be heavyweights in audience…

It is mileage rather than performance per se, though, isn't it? That is, a car which gets 20 mpg going 120 mph is putting out less greenhouse gases than one getting 10 mpg at 60 mph, right? Various cars are both fast and somewhat fuel efficient -- for instance, Acura NSX comapred to a Jeep Wrangler.

while I shouldn't be speeding, I do notice that my MINI Cooper S still gets reasonable mileage while cruising at higher speeds (for which it is optimised); increasingly worse than when travelling slower. Accelerating to higher speeds (and hills) is what kills what would otherwise be super mpg.

FWIW I usually drive slow. And I am a TerraPass customer...and no I can't realistically take the bus, as I work at nights and at a distance the monopolistic bus company doesn't want to deal with conveniently (for me anyway)...though it could...bastards.

"Some readers think I should use the piñata whenever I write about something silly by Tim Blair, but the rules for piñata usage are stricter than that. The rules are that it is only to be used when Blair produces another nugget of stupid after being beaten with a clue stick."

It's important to maintain standards.

I like what Blair says at the end:

"A planet under the heel of frisbee people is a planet that deserves to be destroyed."

There's no implication that he wouldn't go along with the generalization of this:

"A planet that attempts countermeasures to global warming is a planet that deserves to be destroyed."

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 29 Dec 2006 #permalink

"A planet under the heel of frisbee people is a planet that deserves to be destroyed."

It's a dirty job, but dammit, somebody's got to do it.

"something silly by Tim Blair"

Isn't that redundant?

I think we need to have English standards here too.

It does seem that a great deal of fuel is wasted by gridlock in its various forms. It'd be nice if they would put a few engineers to work to make traffic more effeicient, less starts and stops that burn so much fuel needlessly. A 5% savings on fuel could probably be achieved, which, over the entire modern world, is quite significant. And the cost in raw materials and so forth would be minimal. Just effort, really.

It'd be nice if they would put a few engineers to work to make traffic more effeicient, less starts and stops that burn so much fuel needlessly.

See what they're trying to do in NY. There's only so much efficiency to be had in the throughput arena.

Best,

D

It'd be nice if they would put a few engineers to work to make traffic more effeicient, less starts and stops that burn so much fuel needlessly.'

And public transport is more efficient by far than individual cars (or should I say SUV's?)

The main problem is not that technologies are not available for decreasing energy use with the same service delivered. The primary problem is that there is no will to do it.

Americans need to change their attitudes. They need to start thinking about someone other than themsleves all the time.

And they need to get a clue: many Americans would spend an hour and a half sitting (and burning gas) in a traffic jam going to work every day, even though there is a train that can get them there in an hour.

in 1977 Volkswagen stopped selling the Beetle in America because it didn't meet then-current US emissions standards.

Well, it's nice to know that Tim Blair is an advocate for stricter environmental regulations. When he realizes that CO2 is, in fact, a pollutant, maybe he'll support the Kyoto Protocol?