Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

For Overstated Claims, Gore, Tesla Upbraided By NWS, NHTSA Respectively

timothy posted 1 year,8 days | from the my-hubris-meter-goes-to-12 dept.

Government 195

barlevg writes "In a recent interview, former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore made a bold claim, that man-made global warming was causing hurricanes to be formed of such severity that 'they're adding a 6' to the hurricane scale, going on to say that 'The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.' In response, the National Weather Service has responded that they have no plans to add a 'doomsday Category 6' to their rating scale: 'No, we're not pursuing any such change. I'm also not sure who VP Gore means by "they,"' also noting that 'Category 5 has no ceiling: it includes hurricanes with top sustained winds of 157 mph and higher.' Furthermore, a recently leaked United Nations climate assessment claims only 'low confidence' of a link between human activity and increased hurricane severity and that this is likely due to increased human settlement in coastal areas and other regions vulnerable to natural disasters." Along similar lines, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that Tesla's Model S, no matter how safe it is, doesn't get any special grade inflation: there's no "5.4" score (as the company did in a press release this week), because that's just not how the NHTSA keeps score. (Hat tip to reader cartechboy.)

cancel ×

195 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gore (-1, Troll)

Cornwallis (1188489) | 1 year,8 days | (#44647881)

Fat-ass, sanctimonius, lying, pompous hypocrite.

Re: Gore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647965)

Yeah I hate Rush Limbaugh too. You forgot to mention drug addict.

Re: Gore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647985)

show me your penis

show it!

Re: Gore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648009)

He was not talking about Rush Limbaugh, he was talking about Al Gore you stinking liberal fucking democrat leftist!

Re: Gore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648099)

What an idiot! I don't remember asking about al gore!

Re: Gore (4, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648051)

Tu quoque's don't get us anywhere. Just point out that there are political pricks who're douchebags, which we already know. Yes, that includes Al Gore. No, that does not change the science of climate change. Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.

Re: Gore (0)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648351)

Too bad all the increased data only made stronger evidence for his claim, i'm not sure why they 'made you wan to vomit*'
The hockey stick is still there, all the new data supports it. Dozens of more studies have been done with that data.

*frankly, I've never wanted to vomit.

Re: Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648149)

Yeah I hate Gore too. You forgot to mention drug addict.

FTFY... Well, one [go.com] of them Gores anyhow...

Re: Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648363)

I always wonder about people who get off on calling Rush Limbaugh a drug addict. He's in very good company with plenty of other folks that the same liberal types fall all over themselves to adore, so why the double standard?

Re: Gore (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648495)

maybe it has to do with his comment over the year about just throwing drug users in jail, you moron. ITs not that anyone cares that he is a drug addict and that there are no liberal drug addicts any more then liberals really care that Newter has had 4 marriages. Its not there personal lives they care about, its the hypocrisy with witch they apply the rules. If YOU'RE a drug addict or gay its jail(w/ no voting, no job, no rehab) or no marriage(what with the sanctity of it all). If its THEM, well life just goes on they way they would like it it too.

Re: Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648531)

I always wonder about people who get off on calling Rush Limbaugh a drug addict. He's in very good company with plenty of other folks that the same liberal types fall all over themselves to adore, so why the double standard?

Because conservatives tend toward the druggies=scum rhetoric, continued acceptance of Rush indicates a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

It's similar to the way politicians of all stripes get caught having affairs, but it's a bigger deal when it's someone who campaigned on a family values platform.

Re: Gore (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649063)

Rush is the only hypocrite in that story, and that's because of his public statements about "drug addicts". Try and keep up commrade.

Re: Gore (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648467)

Herp derp. Gore-bots can't handle the truth.

Re: Gore (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649127)

I'm not an American and don't really see Gore as a politician, even though I remember him as one. I actually like the guy, he's the only US politician that I can think of in the last 20yrs that even comes close to being a geek. He doesn't personally profit from his climate charity, and he's a long way off being a "billionaire".

Re: Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648715)

Yeah, I hate Al Gore too. He also forgot to mention attempted rapist.

Re: Gore (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648809)

What? Everyone knows Al Gore is a closeted ruddy-faced queen.

Re:Gore (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648419)

Spot on. Of course here you'll get marked troll for pointing it out. In the US, everything is a binary split between "liberal" (not Classical Liberal of the kind the founding fathers would recognise) and "Conservative". Slashdot is mostly the former. Al Gore is a "liberal" hero, but as you've correctly observed, also a massive twat.

Re:Gore (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648439)

Don't be so hasty, the man is very important.

Without him, we wouldn't have the Algore-rithm that he invented while attending Harvard.

Where would computer science be without the Algorithm?

New tag needed: (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647885)

incomprehensibleheadline

Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (5, Funny)

Captain_Loser (601474) | 1 year,8 days | (#44647913)

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648409)

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
- Newt Gingrich, 2000 [ajc.com]

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648653)

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

It hasn't fallen victim. It just takes great glee in perpetuating that erroneous meme.

When friends of friends call me to complain that "the Internet isn't working right", I tell them to "blame it on Gore".

"He invented it, after all."

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (1, Troll)

Quasimodem (719423) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649161)

So where on the perineum does that put you, closer to an asshole or a prick?

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648793)

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Yes, I was watching the interview where he said that, and he did say it. The problem is that he uses the idiomatic phrase "took the initiative". One cannot "take" a Congressional initiative. The phrase literally means "I did this".

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+the+initiative [thefreedictionary.com]

"take the initiative (to do something)- to activate oneself to do something even if one has not been asked to do it."

He was saying that he created the internet. I agree with Newt that Gore was a major early contributor to funding the internet. But he didn't create it.

If you would read the intro and accompanying texts with an open mind you would realize that the guy is a world-class bullshitter, and claiming to have created the internet fits into the rest of what he does.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (0)

erice (13380) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648875)

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
- Newt Gingrich, 2000 [ajc.com]

He didn't do that either. Al Gore was involved in the creation of NREN [umich.edu] , the successor to Arpanet and NSFnet and the immediate predecessor to the commercialized Internet we have today. But the Internet already existed and had for several years, dating no later than 1983, with the creation of a gateway between Arpanet and CSnet [zakon.org] .

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648455)

He didn't invent the Internet, he invented the Algorithm!

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648773)

However, the Al Gore Rhythm is quite boring. Sleng teng it is NOT.

Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647921)

A Category 1 hurricane brought New York City to its KNEES.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648077)

The Category system only measures wind speed, not storm surge, track, or the velocity of the storm system, or even how much rain it will dump. A Category 1 coming ashore during a full-moon high tide can do a lot more damage than a hurricane with higher winds.Arguably, Sandy was not even a hurricane when it came ashore. And a year before there was Irene that deluged inland areas of New York and North Jersey with amazing amounts of rainfall. It came ashore with winds similar to Sandy in almost the same part of NJ, but did very little damage to that area.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648911)

However, the average population (myself included living in the Southwest) is not aware of these facts. All they know is Category 1 - bad, Category 5 - Disaster. Thus it makes perfect sense, from a political/push-global-warming-agenda for Gore to make up things like this, because comments like this generate a Category 5 populist hysteria shit-storm.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (1, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648089)

More like "to its ankles". Buildings were not washed away, it was a minor inconvenience in a highly populated area.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (2)

Richy_T (111409) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648187)

Yes. But it was in New York so it actually mattered.

(If you didn't see the sarcasm there, you're probably a New Yorker).

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648255)

Yes. But it was in New York so it actually mattered.

(If you didn't see the sarcasm there, you're probably a New Yorker).

You probably meant someone from New York City. New York is a state. Not that any idiot that lives in NYC understands that. I mean they have the nerve to call then football teams the New York **** when they play in New Jersey. That hurricane should have wiped that wretched hell hole off the make making the world a better place.

Sincerely
A Buffalonian

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44649187)

You sound bitter.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (2)

Antipater (2053064) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648213)

I don't know...have you ever been brought to your ankles? If something brings you to your knees, you can just stand right back up again. But roll an ankle, and man, that's like a week of limping and constant pain!

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648311)

so complete shut down, billions in damage, compete destruction of 100s of automobiles is now a minor conveniences?

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648355)

so complete shut down, billions in damage, compete destruction of 100s of automobiles is now a minor conveniences?

Yes when you take that Billions divided by the population, it works out to a minor inconvenience per capita.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648547)

Yeah, if your ankles are 9 feet off the ground. Not only were buildings washed away, in north Jersey, entire towns were swept out to sea. In Brooklyn, a neighborhood was mostly underwater and on fire. There were boats in people's driveways where their cars were before. It cost billions in damage. This was a helluva lot more than an inconvenience to those who lived there. Maybe it was in inconvenience to you.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6? (1)

Score Whore (32328) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648575)

$20 and a convenient alley will get New York City on its knees.

Lolwut? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647945)

What a random assemblage of unscientific climate change denial and pointless conservative curmudgeonry! How the hell did this get voted up into the home page?

Re:Lolwut? (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648361)

Mod parent up. The OP is a perfect example of some non-scientist hating the players and not the game. Tesla's marketing gaffes do not alter the fact that their car is safer than pretty much anything out there. Al Gore's hyperbolic statements are irrelevant to the actual truth about climate change. And, please remind me, which UN committee was it that was unaffected by some agenda?

The OP maybe be marginally funny (to some) and possibly gratifying to climate change deniers, but it contributes nothing at all to any scientific discussion. Go find some real data [noaa.gov] if you want to have a serious discussion. Otherwise, stay on the porch with the little dogs.

Re:Lolwut? (5, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649033)

OP here. And my Ph.D and career take issue with your "non-scientist" characterization. My point in submitting the story (based on articles written by meteorologists) was not to "gratify" climate change deniers. On the contrary. It was to call out a man making stupid (and blatantly false) assertions. When climate change supporters exaggerate claims (like with that arctic methane bomb a few weeks back) or falsify data, it HURTS their (OUR) case rather than helping it. One of the biggest criticisms I (and other liberals) have of many conservatives is that they make shit up, bend "facts" to serve political agendas and completely ignore reality even it's staring them in the face. When Al Gore says that man is causing "category six" hurricanes when a UN report says there's no conclusive evidence that man is causing stronger hurricanes, and the NWS says there's nothing past Category Five, he's being alarmist, irrational and no better than the "deniers" he's giving ammunition to.

There should be a Cat 6 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647951)

Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.

Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?

Nice trolling submission.

Re:There should be a Cat 6 (5, Informative)

memeplex (910698) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648101)

There's a bit of a difference between "should be", and "they're adding a..." There's no need to reflexively defend Gore. AGW is real. Gore being an asshole is also real.

Re:There should be a Cat 6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44649157)

He's a category 6 Vice President and wind-bag.

Re:There should be a Cat 6 (5, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648117)

Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level.

Yes, Cat6. More twists per inch and you can't strip back as far when you punch one down into a patch block.

Re:There should be a Cat 6 (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648679)

I like how the conservative talking points seem to have shifted in recent years away from whether global temperatures are actually warmer (they are [noaa.gov] ) and on to whether or not these higher temperatures result in any noticeable effect.

I got him beat (5, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,8 days | (#44647961)

My category scale goes to 11

Re:I got him beat (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648045)

Here I am! Rocked you like a huricaaaaaaaaaaaaane!

Re:I got him beat (5, Funny)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648103)

That's nothing, on my laptop the volume goes to 255!

Re:I got him beat (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648479)

My player only goes to 128 because was it was written in Java, you insensitive clod!

Re:I got him beat (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649177)

That's nothing. Mine goes up to 16777215 !

Re:I got him beat (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648139)

My category scale goes to 11

64 should be a high enough category for any hurricane.

Biased much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44647995)

You know who ELSE used hyperbole in discussion and marketing?

Srsly folks, let's try to rein in the political leaning a little bit. This is the kind of thing I'd imagine Fox News harping about. On a slow news day.

Not The High One! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648049)

It's delightful to see all the AC warming alarmist trolls squirm as their high priest is chided for wrongful claims of "science".

Re:Biased much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648407)

There's a difference between hyperbole and a bold faced lie.

Re:Biased much? (4, Informative)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649083)

That was actually my point exactly in posting this article. In order to support the argument that climate change deniers are the ones who disregard reality, we need to make sure that climate change awareness "advocates" don't go around doing the exact same shit.

A whole news post (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648023)

arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.

Re:A whole news post (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648161)

arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.

Writing analysis says this was typed by the same person who typed

Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.

Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?

Nice trolling submission.

Re:A whole news post (5, Funny)

wooferhound (546132) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648525)

If a Hurricane is strong enough to tip over a Tesla model S, then it should get a Category 6 rating . . .

Re:A whole news post (1)

Richy_T (111409) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648211)

Words, eh? It's not like they mean anything or anything like that.

Er... the summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648033)

Tesla's Model S, no matter how safe it is, doesn't get any special grade inflation: there's no "5.4" scoreas the company did in a press release this week), because that's just not how the NHTSA keeps score. (Hat tip to reader cartechboy.)

( + excuse me?!

I'm Good With Tesla's Claims (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648053)

I'm happy with Tesla claiming a 5.4 ... as long as the same scoring is reported for other cars. I haven't heard a peep about what competing vehicles got when scored the same way. Maybe i missed it, but it sure seemed like none of the 'reporters' were willing to even do the mildest amount of investigation to give the public an honest comparison and that's where the real problem is.

Re:I'm Good With Tesla's Claims (5, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648589)

I'm happy with Tesla claiming a 5.4 ... as long as the same scoring is reported for other cars. I haven't heard a peep about what competing vehicles got when scored the same way. Maybe i missed it, but it sure seemed like none of the 'reporters' were willing to even do the mildest amount of investigation to give the public an honest comparison and that's where the real problem is.

Apparently, it's capped at 5. However, that doesn't mean a car can't score higher, it's just it's reported as 5.

The reason for the "5.4" is that they keep the raw scores - they occasionally have to reset all the scores because cars were basically passing the current criteria. So they reset the meanings to make 5 a harder goal still. Of course, since you can't compare a 5 from the past to a 5 today, they reassess all the scores and give them new ratings based on what the current rating system is. So yesterday's 5 might be today's 4.

They keep raw values because you can't obviously re-test obsolete vehicles, but you still need to be able to compare.

The other way, of course, is to add further ratings - so 5 stars today is 5 stars tomorrow - you see this with some ranking systems, e.g., Windows Experience Index where the max value is raised (5 in Vista, 7.9 in 7, I don't know what 8 has).

It's just that today, Tesla's Model S exceeds current safety ratings (they had to "cheat" to get it to roll over because there was no standard test maneuver they could do to roll it over, and I think on the roof crush test, it broke the machine).

Of course, tomorrow when people make even safer cars, the Model S might score a 4 with the new criteria.

Re:I'm Good With Tesla's Claims (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648701)

My understanding is NHTSA scoring system technically allows for higher than 5.0 type scores, but the official scores top at 5.0.

It is like a teacher I had in school, they'd add 2 extra questions at the end of tests. Those 2 questions could be used to make up for a pair of missed questions, but could not raise your official score above the value of the test.

So Tesla is bragging they got the extra credit questions and extrapolating their score to 5.4 - NHTSA says you can only use integers and no float values.

Category 6? (1)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648105)

Once we start colonizing other planets category 6 may be needed. Until then it's just political pedantry.

I'm a little confused though.. is this article about Mr. Gore exaggerating climate change to fit his agenda, or is it about the UN dismissing the signs of climate change to fit their agenda? "People and organizations promote their agendas to the exclusion of truth, news at 11. Also, stay tuned for corrections about previous stories."

It must be another slow news day.

Re:Category 6? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648151)

or is it about the UN dismissing the signs of climate change to fit their agenda?

I'm sorry, what? The UN doesn't have an agenda that benefits from dismissing "signs of climate change". How can the smaller countries rake the big developed ones over the coals if the coals aren't creating an impending disaster that the big countries need to give the small ones money to solve?

Re:Category 6? (1)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648257)

Any sentence that begins with "The UN doesn't have an agenda ..." is patently absurd. The UN is a group of countries, both big and small, that have come together to push their agendas. The only way it does anything is through that process.

Re:Category 6? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648519)

Any sentence that begins with "The UN doesn't have an agenda ..." is patently absurd.

Any reader who stops after 6 words in a compound sentence is patently absurd, and anyone who reads what I wrote and comes away with the idea I said that the UN has no agenda is insane or illiterate or both.

Re:Category 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648197)

per the quote: The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.

you are suppose to have forgotten about what he/they said before and only react to what they say now..Come on, get in line there....

Caldera Volcano (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648115)

Hey, now i agree we do need to cut back on pollution, cars are not the problem,

look up super tankers you know the big boats, that have cargo boxes on them.
^they put out more crap then all the worlds cars

i am annoyed by sound pollution, nobody ever talks about that, its like choppers and rice go faster when loud?

In one day a volcano could burp, and spit out more toxic gases than from the entire industrial rev. to now, look it up
i dont have a phd in geology

I rate this story 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648137)

On a scale of 10.

Category 5 is know as the hand of god.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648171)

I propose Category 6 be classified as "Satan's Cumblast"

ManBearPig! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648179)

Everyone knows that category 6 is reserved for ManBearPig.

I'm totally cereal. Excelsior!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig

Tesla Model S (0)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648219)

Is this the car where a reporter failed to make a simple journey and Musk published misleading charts which didn't even take account of the wheel diameter, then a big deal was made out of a repeat which was done in substantially different conditions, then when another group of bitter owners tried (again without reproducing original conditions), one car wouldn't charge until it had received a "firmware update"?

I don't think the internal combustion engine has much to worry about just yet.

Re:Tesla Model S (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648289)

The only reason the review showed the car failing is because the reviewer INTENTIONALLY didn't recharge the battery enough for the last leg of the trip (as the on board computer data logs showed quite clearly).

Take an ICE engine that gets 30 mpg, put one gallon in it, and it'll also not make a 100 mile trip (or whatever the distance was).

Go figure.

Re:Tesla Model S (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649009)

1) Except that that's not the reporter's account, and it's getting pretty boring to hear Tesla+fanboys try sooooo hard to discredit someone simply because he was driving like anyone would normally drive a car and he found out that one car isn't quite suited for driving like that;

2) Even so, when you're doing an independent test, you rely on independent logging.

Re:Tesla Model S (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648295)

Is this the car where a reporter failed to make a simple journey and Musk published misleading charts which didn't even take account of the wheel diameter, then a big deal was made out of a repeat which was done in substantially different conditions,

No, it was the one where a reporter had an upfront bias agenda and went out of his way to make things fail
so he could have juicy story.

YES! 7p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648253)

Warming will reduce, not increase hurricanes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648273)

They're driven by the heat gradient across latitude, and increased temperature overall will reduce that gradient.

There was talk of adding a 6 (2)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648287)

Open ended doesn't mean there isn't room for another category. Category is based on damage to a home. SO Cat 5 means 'highly likely to destroy a house'.
also takes out most the windows in a high rise building..

But what happens when they start making high rises uninhabitable and need to be torn down?
That would mean they would need to add a category.
It's science. If new data or events start to happen the science with adjust to fit the data.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws_table.pdf [noaa.gov]

Re:There was talk of adding a 6 (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649185)

The Enhanced Fujita Scale-- which estimates wind speed on the basis of damage assessments, not on measurements, has an EF-5 category-- steel reinforced concrete structures are critically damaged; high rise buildings sustain severe structural damage. An Ef5 tornado is believed to have winds in excess of 200 mph.

Hurricane Camille had sustained wind-speeds of up to 190 mph.

So there might be some usefulness to a sixth category, but it hasn't happened yet.

No hurricane increase ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648373)

Professor Pielke recently testified to congress on these matters, there is no increase in hurricane strength or frequency.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/pielke-jrs-follow-up-qa-from-the-senate-epw-committee/#more-92033

2) Dr. Pielke, do you agree with comments made during the hearing that the weather here in the U.S. has fundamentally changed as is evidenced by an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes? Do you agree there is “strong evidence” that extreme weather events in the U.S. have become more frequent and intense?

PIELKE REPLY: A range of evidence summarized in my prepared testimony indicates that, on climate time scales in the US or globally, there has not been an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or tornadoes. The evidence for this claim is strong and is well-supported in the peer-reviewed literature, data collected by the U.S. government’s research agencies and the recent report on extreme events by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.

3) Dr. Pielke, to reiterate your points debunking claims that weather events in the United States are “extreme” in that they are increasing and more intense I would like to ask you a series of questions and provide you the opportunity to answer each.

a) Have United States landfalling hurricanes increased in frequency or intensity since 1900? Have they increased globally? Has damage, adjusted for more people and property, increased in the US or elsewhere?

PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an increase in hurricane landfall frequency or intensity since at least 1900, nor in measures of damage, normalized for societal change. In fact, the US is presently in the longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall since at least 1900.

b) Has United States flooding increased on climate timescales? Globally? Have United States tornadoes increased? Has United States drought overall increased?

PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an overall increase in flooding, nor has such an increase been documented globally. The same holds also for tornadoes and drought.

c) Has the cost of disasters increased globally as a fraction of GDP?

PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the cost of disasters as a fraction of global GDP has actually decreased since 1990.

4) Has anyone taken you up on your June 27th twitter invitation to defend President Obama’s claim? (“Open invitation: Does anyone wish to defend the Obama claim that worse extreme weather is increasing disaster costs?”)

PIELKE REPLY: No one took up the challenge.

Combining articles (2)

Netdoctor (95217) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648375)

That's two different subjects.

Editors: is this a news aggregation site, or are we now making new articles here?

Re:Combining articles (1)

wooferhound (546132) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648611)

Yes the aggregated 2 unrelated stories into 1, They are trying to make s smaller footprint so a hurricane will cause less damage . . .

Re:Combining articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648943)

I'll have to second the whine on this, especially since confounding the two different subjects ensures no relevant discussion on the articles in question... which, I guess, is nothing new here.

Aside, Gore's arguably irresponsible use of "they" allows his statement to be effectively true, as anyone with Google could easily ascertain. Even the universally hated Wikipedia links to http://abcnews.go.com/US/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1 and http://www.livescience.com/426-wilma-rage-suggests-hurricane-categories-needed.html , both of which discuss the feeling of some scientists and journalists that category 6 IS needed. Therefore, "they" do talk about adding category 6, as long as one allows "them" to include journalists and scientists. That said I agree he should know by now to be very exact in his communications, and references with "they" are dubious to begin with.

NHC's stance as relayed by NWS (that's right, the article linked doesn't even have statement straight from the horse's mouth, though I'll admit I'm not up to date on the exact organizational relation of the two) seems counter-purposeful, though. Even if current building codes don't require buildings to be able to withstand even category 5 hurricanes, which seems to be the gist of the reason for not having higher categories, having higher categories would provide incentive and instrument to measure even stronger buildings. Indeed, as category 5 is open-ended, it's currently impossible to advertise a hurricane safe-room as "category 5 proof".

Comparable Ratings (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648387)

If a Category 6 storm is coming, just get in your 5.4 safety-rated Tesla. What could go wrong?

As I read this story (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648435)

I am asking: what is the point?

Scientific American (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648473)

While it is always good to dump on Al Gore by claiming he
        said something that he didn't say, IN THIS CASE there is a 2011 [scientificamerican.com]
            story from Scientific American - the lefty publication that
        seduces our young into a life of respect for science and fact that
        actually substantiates that the claim he makes is....TRUE. He never
        claimed that the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE was discussing the change,
        only that Climate Scientists were discussing the change. Which -
        apparently in 2011 some were. But please vent your spleen at him
        anyway.

Re:Scientific American (1)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649123)

Yeah, but it's the NWS who makes the call. Also, more relevantly, the data's not all back yet on whether climate change causes stronger hurricanes (a comment above suggests the reverse might be true). Climate change is real. I do not dispute that. And it's real enough that there's no need for hyperbole that only hurts the cause in the long run.

Rating system broken (2)

Twinbee (767046) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648553)

How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe. There's ALWAYS room for improvement, and as far as I can tell, Tesla extrapolated the 5.4 score to reflect measurable stats that the NHTSA provided.

It reminds me of 20 watt CFL light bulbs which have an 'A' rating. At least in the UK, it stops there; you can't get better than an A no matter how well a device performs (11 watt LED bulbs are apparently almost twice as efficient [amazon.co.uk] at 11 watt compared to 20). It's an artificial limitation which limits product innovation and efficiency. If you are going to use letters than at least go from A forwards through the alphabet, or even better, report the actual efficiency as lumens per watt rather than a blind, backwards system which can't imagine that the future could get any better.

Re:Rating system broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648669)

How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe.

You incorrectly assume that a higher score means it's more safe.

Re:Rating system broken (1)

Twinbee (767046) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648873)

Well if that's the case, then you can't trust any of the scores from the NHTSA. On the contrary, the Model S is exceptionally good at avoiding overturns, has a great lengthy crumple zone at the front (due to the lack of an ICE engine), and its side impacts is the safest (or one of the safest) going due to rocket engineers designing the thing. It wouldn't surprise me if a score of 6 or 7 should be given instead of 5.4.

No fatalities or serious injuries in the Model S so far apparently, despite a few accidents. See for example this story [reddit.com] where someone was drink driving maybe about 80mph and demolished an electric pole, but survived thanks to the Model S (it employed all 8 airbags apparently).

Re:Rating system broken (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649049)

So the better the crash performance, the less safe a car is?

A UN Report? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44648765)

Furthermore, a recently leaked United Nations climate assessment claims only 'low confidence' of a link between human activity...

1. The UN is full of diplomats and politicians, not climate scientists.

2. When the hell has the UN ever done ANYTHING that wasn't politically motivated? It's in their GODDAMN MISSION STATEMENT.

[insert facepalm here]

Human "induced" change (1)

bricko (1052210) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648847)

They are conflating MORE people moving into an area as increased human caused warming damage.....nonsense , again.

Re:Human "induced" change (1)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649159)

Awkwardly worded, I admit (the summary was getting long, and I didn't want to out-and-out plagiarize the source article). But the argument is that hurricane severity is measured in dollars of destruction, and in that case, the more likely culprit for increased property destruction was increased property to destroy.

Al Gore is a Cateory 6 moron (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | 1 year,8 days | (#44648897)

And a hurricane has more personality than him.

Ding .. Ding .. DING !!! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | 1 year,8 days | (#44649207)

I don't know about all of the ones in the summary (and certainly the Al Gore one is absurd), but when it comes to overstated claims, I know this one website that claims to have "News for Nerds; Stuff that Matters".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>