|
|
Of Course You Know This Means War
From the Department of Disapproving Technocrats, we have this study which "discovers" that in the past forty years America's widening ass has resulted in greater fuel consumption. The fact that America's cars have become far more efficient over the same period of time literally does not enter the equation. Oh, and if I (or any of my friends) actually tried to lose 100 pounds to save that 18 gallons of gas? Well we wouldn't need a car after that because we'd all be dead.
Okay, I've been commenting a bit more regularly today, but this one just takes the cake. Let's look at some fun quotes:
Outside experts said that even if the calculations aren't exact, the study makes sense.
"If you put more weight into your car, you're going to get fewer miles per gallon," Emory University health care analyst Kenneth Thorpe said Wednesday. [emphasis mine]
While likely a health care expert, does this make him an engineering expert as well? Yes, what he's saying is true, but if you're going to talk to an outside expert, shouldn't it be one involved in discussing the actual efficiency of motor vehicles?
Let's couple this:
The lost mileage is pretty small for any single driver. Jacobson said the typical driver — someone who records less than 12,000 miles annually — would use roughly 18 fewer gallons of gas over the course of a year by losing 100 pounds. At $2.20 per gallon, that would be a savings of almost $40. [emphasis mine]
with this:
The estimates "are probably pretty reliable," said Larry Chavis, an economist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. "I don't know if it's going to encourage anybody to go out and lose weight to save gasoline, but even for individual families, it could have an effect on their budget." [emphasis mine].
Seems like the someone quoted didn't read the study? A savings of $40 over the year isn't going to impact many folks budgets. That's less than $1/week ($0.77, to round to the nearest penny). Hell, just picking up loose change in parking lots could account for a good chunk of that. So could a bit of decent sale shopping for food.
The actual study itself might be good (dunno as it's not there to read), but the article surrounding it is a pile of stinking cat-poo.
Posted by: ronaprhys on October 26, 2006 03:41 PMIt had to have been some sort of press conference or release. WaPo carried nearly the same article today in the A section.
Posted by: scott on October 26, 2006 03:48 PM" Well we wouldn't need a car after that because we'd all be dead."
Yes, that's the point. The human race is in dire need of culling, if we are to survive on the meager amount of food produced in communally owned organic farms, which will be all that's left after we have shut down all those horrible commercial farms and hanged all their workers for crimes against the environment. So, we need to kill people off en masse, starting with any morons too stupid to realize what our real goal is before it's too late.
Why do fat people hate America?
Posted by: ron on October 27, 2006 10:33 AM