Aug 06 2008
The Obidiot Speaks Again
Over the years I have learned that some Ivy League degrees are not so much a representation of intelligence, but more a training program for the elite to hide how dumb they are. Barrack Obama seems to fall into this category because there are times when he makes statements I would expect out of a 4th grader, not a alumni of Harvard.
For example today we have the tire inflation issue. Obama is out trying to defend is ridiculous claim that America can save up to 4% on our oil imports by inflating our tires. How stupid can this be? Well, let me do a simple analysis to assess the potential for savings and explain why folks who rely on C+ HS math skills should stay away from numbers to make their case.
4% is the maximum potential savings in mileage an individual can obtain through correct tire pressure. That assumes the tires are so far away from their optimal pressure fixing the problem will generate the maximum result. However, most people are not driving tires massively off in their tire pressure. So let’s makes some ridiculously pessimistic assumptions on the nation’s tire inflation status and determine the maximum potential benefit regarding our oil consumption.
Realize a vast majority of cars are serviced regularly, and all commercial transportation systems are highly regulated and checked. If I was to draw the worst case scenario I would say 50% of the nation’s cars and trucks do not have properly inflated tires (I will avoid the math the discusses how many tires of a potential number, which varies from cars to commercial transportation vehicles like semi-trucks).
In addition, not all of those out of spec will be 100% out of spec. So let’s assume 25% are only half out of spec, with a potential to increase mileage by 2%, while the other 25% can benefit at the maximum level possible. This means instead of saving 4% across the nation, we only save (.25*.02) + (.25*.04) = 0.015, or 1.5%. That is the realistic potential maximum savings the NATION could expect from the tire pressure magical cure due to gasoline used for driving.
Obama and his liberal media math-challenged groupies keep claiming it is 4% and they just take that off the entire national oil consumption numbers. But of course, as anyone with more than 2 IQ digits to rub together knows, gasoline is not all this nation uses oil for. We use it for heating and other oil-based products. But again, let’s just assume 80% of the oil in this nation is used for transportation (this is a complete WAG BTW). This drops the 1.5% maximum potential savings from Obama’s tire inflation ‘program’ towards energy independence to a national maxim potential savings of 1.2%.
And I am fairly confident I am over estimating this by at least 50%. So all Obama’s anger at being called out this ‘issue’ is his own ignorant fault. The fact someone with a Harvard degree failed to do a simple sanity check such as this on his silly claim is just another indicator Obama is fairly clueless and simply packages up juvenile sound bites in response to polls.
Of course, I am now an evil, anti-American, rabid conservative for actually applying my brain and knowledge to a serious issue. OK, fine with me. I am not an Obama fan because when the man speaks I see someone struggling to grasp the basics of reality. Folks, the lesson in all this is don’t let the school system ruin your kids’ future. Math is important to discern reality from the hucksters (who typically avoided math because it was ‘too hard’). Don’t let your kids grow up to be an Obidiot.
34 Responses to “The Obidiot Speaks Again”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
AJ it is not what the brain can think, calculate, reason or substantiate, it’s how you FEEL about the subject. If you feel that inflating your tires will make the planet better, oil less necessary, then it will be so. If you can feel someone’s pain then surely you are the one that we have all been waiting for, you will lift up the poor, put all in homes and the waters will recede. You are the symbol of all that is good that Americans aspire to but can’t quit grasp. My hope is that Americans are smarter then Obama feels they are.
Yeah but even if you’re right, that’s 1.5% on EVERY vehicle
)
No Ray,
It is 1.5% averaged over all vehicles. Most don’t have an inflation issue. In my model 25% have half a problem and 25% have sufficient problems to gain the maximum benefit.
This is a rough order of magnitude, best case. Refinements in model fidelity will drop this average. For example, my guess is 80% have proper inflation. Those who are the worst off drive the least, etc.
AJStrata
ray, it’s sure not 1.5% on my vehicles since I check my tires monthly. So do many other people – and have you seen the dashboard pressure check systems that warn you if air is low?
This “problem” is ridiculously overstated, and even AJ (trying to give the benefit of the doubt) far overstates the problem. He’s left out the fact that this is also dependant on the type of car usage. A car that is driven at slower speeds in a city will not see much improvement in mileage since it is operating at less then optimal mileage most of the time. (lower gears, etc) Also, the extra rolling resistance which comes from an underinflated tire increases dramatically with speed. To see the most theoretical improvement, the vehicle must be doing long stretches on an interstate where efficiency is maximized. Taking that into accout, I think even AJ’s numbers overstate the theoretical improvement greatly.
This is a word game for parlor liberals that exists mainly to support the meme that we don’t need any more supply. It falls apart on even the most cursory analysis.
Just out of curiousity, and because you are often a stickler for details, AJ:
Do you have any data to back up the assumptions you make above, about how many tires are properly inflated, how many are “half out of spec”, etc?
Because it would seem a bit presumptous to berate other people “who rely on C+ HS math skills”, based upon a mathematical equation with numbers that you just made up.
It’s not that checking your tires is a bad idea… [actually, it is an excellent suggestion]… but in the original remark Sen. O can’t keep his mouth shut and adds on to makes the dumb statement about how much it will save… ["all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling." That assertion was, and remains, false."
I play a little poker and Sen. O would do well to heed the old saying on this one... Ya gotta know when to hold-em and know when to fold-em
Then he doubles down on a losing horse with the 4% argument. Powerline has the same argument as Aj. [and me] Great minds you know.
Breschau… I imagine Aj’s numbers will be fairly correct. There is a theory that when one makes a bunch of estimates based on what one reasonably thinks [the individual estimates will be off both ways] that the end result is very close to the right answer.
It looks like a better number for US motor fuel consumption would be 45% of US oil consumption, not 80% as you WAG’ed. From the website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
we find US Motor Gasoline consumption of 9,286,000 barrels/day and US Petroleum consumption of 20,680,000 barrels/day for a percentage of 45%. The final savings using your other assumptions would then be 0.675%.
[...] AJ Strata: Obama is out trying to defend is ridiculous claim that America can save up to 4% on our oil imports by inflating our tires. How stupid can this be? Well, let me do a simple analysis to assess the potential for savings and explain why folks who rely on C+ HS math skills should stay away from numbers to make their case. [...]
It is ABSURD THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS!
Inflating tires won’t put cheap gas in the airplanes. Or in people’s heaters. Or in our shipping fleet. Sheeze. This is ridiculous!
Drill here. Drill now. And go to the devil radical leftists.
Damn, breschau, re-read AJ’s post. All the numbers he used, except for the original 4%, are ASSUMPTIONS!!!! They are logical assumptions based on his criteria. For Barack Hussein Obama to use the 4% max number per vehicle across the entire oil usage of America is so far from logical, only irrational liberals and true simpletons would stick with it.
AJ’s assumptions are off-the-cuff, but completely logical. I found a study by doing a Google search from the NHTSA, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-317.pdf, that did a study on 2001, and found about 27% of cars on the road had ONE tire that was down on tire pressure by 8 psi or more. Click and Clack, at Cartalk.com, have posted since 2005 that a car will lose 0.4% fuel mileage for every 1 psi of tire pressure below recommend pressure (ballpark figure). To get to Barack Hussein Obama’s 4%, you need all four tires to get to 10 psi below recommended pressure.
AJ is right on point for this one.
AJStrata wrote:
“No Ray,
It is 1.5% averaged over all vehicles”
.
My “1.5% for EVERY car” was just a very slack joke that didn’t work out.
When I saw you good calculations and then looked at the Obama 4% quote again, I was reminded of those TV ads where they say “You save 10% on EVERY item you purchase!” I figured there would be people who buy 6 items and think they saved 60%.
You know – 1.5% x 20 million cars = ??
Obama’s figures contain a lot of assumptions, which have been outlined. Another issue, though is that only about 70% of oil is used for transportation in the U.S. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html) How does that affect his figures? Also, that figure includes jet fuel. It also includes gasoline used in mass transit, moving vans, delivery trucks etc. Do these vehicles have the same likelihood of being underinflated?
Ray(tard)
“My “1.5% for EVERY car” was just a very slack joke that didn’t work out.”
Oh, it worked out. It displayed your normal brilliance.
Partagus,
As I said, my assumptions bounded the best wildly possible result. This is how engineers assess cost-benefit. We do a back of the envelope check with reasonable and highly conservative assumptions to bound the problem.
Cheers, AJStrata
Phil-351,
Thanks for doing the research. I know I was wildly conservative. But at some point the saving runs into the estimation noise and becomes moot. What you (and all the others who refined my guesstimates) are proving is there will be ZERO detectable savings when all is said and done because we cannot track fuel consumption (let alone tire pressures) to that fine of a number. Once you get under 3-5% it is statistically zero.
Cheers, AJStrata
AJ,
Check it out – it looks like McCain is an idiot as well and he didn’t even go to an Ivy League school (or graduate in the top 90% of his class)! MCCAIN HAS NOW BACKED OFF HIS INITIAL CRITICISM OF OBAMA’S COMMENTS AND AGREES WITH OBAMA. Here is what McCain said yesterday during a telephone town hall meeting with voters in Pennsylvania:
“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it.”
Here is the link – look it up yourself. http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/08/05/mccain-takes-air-out-of-tire-pressure-debate/. Too funny!
Now all McCain can say about this issue is that “I … don’t think that that (inflating tires) is a way to become energy independent.” The problem with this approach is that the tire pressure issue is only a minor part of Obama’s overall energy independence proposal, which includes many more significant programs.
So AJ, what do we do now that we discovered that both our presidential candidates are idiots? Vote for Nadar or Barr?
On a related note, what do you all think McCain should do in response to the Gang of 10 Senators floating the compromise for off-shore drilling? Obama signaled an openness to it, but McCain has not yet officially committed. Obama will be attacked as flip-flopping (even though both Obama and McCain were against off-shore drilling prior to June 2008 when it became politically convenient to support it), but I think it will help him given that the majority of Americans currently support off-shore drilling and it will reinforce the image he wants to create as someone who can reach across the aisle and get things done on a a bi-partisan basis. Pelosi will try to kill any bi-partisan deal, but I think she will get out-flanked if Obama and the DNC Senators want to make the deal happen. If McCain doesn’t signal an openess to such a compromise, it will make him look more partisan and like he is only interested in more drilling and helping out the oil companies without pursuing alternative energy sources. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
But, Conguy
McCain didn’t claim that properly inflating tires would solve the problems of the world, he just said he agreed inflating tires correctly would be a good idea. Obaidiot said it would solve all the world’s energy problems. quite a difference.
And no one is allowing for all those people that ‘overinflate’ their tires. I know I run all mine 2 psi high, because it does improve mileage and improves tire wear.
And what in the hell does grades, when you are a young person, have to do with anything? I flunked out of hi school, mainly because I rarely went and when I did it was only to be ‘cool’. But I later went to college and grad in top 2% of that class, so it all has to do with maturity.
It’s not clear to me that our affirmative action candidate learned a damn thing. Not even how many states in the US.
conman:
Oh come on. No one is saying it is a bad idea to inflate your freaking tires. But it will not replace increased production.
Obama and his fan club is basing this on old assumptions they found in some government study done a couple of years ago when there was no plan to drill offshore and oil cost about half what it does today. That changes things.
Obama did not even publish to get tenure. He did not publish when he was on the Law Review. He did not do any original scholarly work. So how do we know he is all that smart anyway?
No Conman,
We have learned your the biggest Obidiot of them all! Thanks for showing by example what a wasted education can result in.
Cheers, AJStrata
Terrye & Redteam,
You need to stop reciting GOP talking points and actually research the issue. Obama never said tire inflation will solve the world’s energy problems. In fact, tire pressure is only one small part of the new energy plan he announced. Here is a link to his plan to prove my point (not that I expect you to actually read it). http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf. One can certainly take issue with various aspects of his plan, but suggesting that tire pressure is the only plan he has or is even a major element of it is just ignoring reality because you don’t want to admit that maybe Obama was raising a legitimate issue and McCain was premature in criticizing him. Really people, is it that hard to admit every once in a while that maybe McCain and/or you were wrong on an issue when it is so obvious to the rest of us?
And no Terrye, Obama is not basing his position about off-shore oil production on some “old study”. It is based on the 2007 EIA annual report prepared by Bush’s own Department of Energy. Here is a link to the report (which I provided yesterday as well) – http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html.
The information on the timing and amount of production for off-shore drilling in the OSC areas is toward the middle, under the “Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf” heading. If you look at the projected production numbers and compare to our current oil consumption rates, it turns out that at peak production (2030) the total of all this off-shore drilling will supply only 1% of our current domestic consumption. This total amount is less than what Bush’s own agency report concluded would be the case if everyone properly inflated their tires. This is the most recent EIA study on this issue. The 2008 annual report (issued June 2008) does not provide any updates or corrections to the 2007 conclusions, which you presume it would have if you were right. Check it out and educate yourself.
If so many things have changed and that report is no longer valid, I’m sure you can provide plenty of credible sources to support your position. So go ahead, have at it. I can’t wait to see what you come up with (I’m guessing another conservative blog with rants similar to yours).
As for the grade issue – come on, you people are so serious. Don’t you have a sense of humor? I could care less about either candidiates scholastic achievements. I agree – it is not a contest about who is “smarter” or got better grades. They are both obviously bright and capable people by the mere fact that they are one step away from being POTUS. I simply added the bottom 10% comment to make fun of AJ’s rant about Ivy League schools.
conman,
You missed McCain’s point.
And graduates of the Service Academies have a much higher level of numeracy than those of the Ivys.
conman:
For a guy who regurgitates the party line like a DNC staffer you are on thin ice talking about someone else doing talking points.
This is from Power Line :
Barack Obama’s suggestion that we can’t drill our way out of the current energy shortage, but we can solve the problem through tire inflation, has been the source of much hilarity. We did the math here, and found that it would take approximately 11,308 years of tire inflation to equal the energy we can obtain by developing our own petroleum resources.
Now, remarkably, Time magazine has rushed to the defense of its candidate, arguing that “Obama is right.”
The author of the article, Michael Grunwald, mixes apple-and-orange statistics to try to create the false impression that there is more to be gained by inflating tires than through offshore drilling:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
Grunwald is trying, through sleight of hand, to conceal certain basic facts: Obama said that tire inflation could save energy equal to “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling,” not just the outer continental shelf; the outer continental shelf, ANWR and Rocky Mountain oil shale contain an estimated one trillion, 28 billion barrels of oil–an estimate that is undoubtedly low–while the maximum savings that could be attained through tire inflation and tuneups, assuming that every single vehicle in America is driving around with semi-flat tires and has never had a tuneup, is a mere 420 million barrels per year.
But there are more devious errors lurking behind Time’s claim that “Obama is right.” Notice the curious formula that Grunwald uses to quantify the energy potential of the outer continental shelf:
The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. [barrels] per day by 2030.
That equates to 73,000,000 barrels per year. Which may sound like a lot, but amounts to only four-tenths of one percent of the OCS’s 18 billion barrels. Further, why is Time not only putting out an absurdly low number, but also talking about the year 2030? The implication seems to be that the oil wouldn’t flow until then, or maybe wouldn’t peak until then, but such a claim would be patently false.
To get to the bottom of the puzzle, I tracked down the source of the statistic that Grunwald attributes to the “Bush administration.” I’m pretty sure this is it: the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030, as published by the Energy Information Administration.
****************
As you can see, the projected recovery from OCS drilling in 2030 is around 200,000 barrels per day. EIA projects recovery to begin around 2018, but as you can see from the graph, EIA projected that only a tiny percentage of the 18 billion barrels (minimum) under the OCS would be recovered.
The explanation, obviously, lies in the set of assumptions used by the EIA in creating its forecast. The forecast was not based on the amount of oil that the OCS actually contains, it was based on the amount that was predicted to be economically remunerative at the then-prevailing price of oil. The EIA report makes this explicit:
Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.
*************
And I do not even want to hear any nonsense about McCain’s academics. Barack did not have to worry about publishing or anything else to get where he got. He had affirmative action behind him. So we will never know if he could have competed without it. McCain on the other hand was young and not as serious as he should have been when he was a student, but when it came to real life he proved he had the guts and the smarts to survive.
This is such a bogus argument for not drilling that I can’t believe;
!.) That it is being seriously discussed and
2.) Any magazine or major media would report it as a serious policy and try to support these as anywhere close to correct figures.
Just shows how in the tank the media socialists are for Obama maybe because they think he will silence the opposition and return them to their glory (momopoly) days.
The real Dem plan as stated by them recently is FORCED CONSERVATION by inflated gas prices due to no recovery, no refining by whatever means they can come up with to block it.
Then only gov’t workers and rich will travel at will as the ignorant masses will be forced to curtail driving to survive.
They are too dumb or don’t care that their plan drives the economy into a recession bordering on depression due to increased prices for everything and the inability of many people to drive to jobs.
Perhaps this driving down of the economy is also the plan to bring about their socialist utopia.
The condescending Barrack Hussein Obama is now openly calling those who disagree with him ignorant.
In any debate when you have to resort to name calling you have lost the argument.
I hope and believe the American people are smarter than to fall for this candidate that refuses to level with them on who he really is.
Terrye:
That’s a very healthy attitude. And yes, I agree McCain’s academics shouldn’t matter that much: he graduated, he served, bully for him. He has admitted he was rather rebellious when he was young, and good for him: I’d certainly hate for someone to judge me now by actions I took when I was in my late teens or early 20’s.
So, if we can admit that being “young” is a good reason for not judging someone, can we also make the statement that serving on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago with William Ayers years ago doesn’t necessarily mean that a person supports everything Ayers has ever done? I mean – we are trying to be reasonable here, right?
And if we can agree on that – why did so many right-leaning websites make such a big deal of that months ago?
breschau:
Obama was not a cadet when he served on the board of the Woods Fund in Chicago. He was doing what he had to do to garner support in that part of Chicago, after all he had big plans. He needed a spring board. I doubt that Obama believes half that stuff himself. He was just milking it.
because i was born in 74, i have no memories of the Weather Underground and what it do to this country
i watched a documentry about it that anyone could find on Google Video just the other day
Those people are terrorists just as much as Al Qaeda. That Obama could tolerate them… and probably consider them to be his mentors is dangerous
The problem with the “young and immature” theme is that in his book “Faith of my Fathers”, John McCain reflected on his early immaturity and showed how his life forced him to become a man. He grew up in the shadow of his father and grandfather, both US Navy Admirals, but grew to be at least the equal of either of them.
Obama, on the other hand, to THIS DAY has never seen anything wrong with William Ayers, and has never denounced him. William Ayers was our own home-grown Bin Laden in the early 70’s; that connection alone tells me that Obama is the most dangerously naive candidate I have ever seen run for president in my life. With that as an example of his vaunted “judgment”, he isn’t fit to serve on the Podunk city council.
WWS:
Obama, on the other hand, to THIS DAY has never seen anything wrong with William Ayers, and has never denounced him.
O RLY?
“Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.”
You just couldn’t do it, could you? You couldn’t make one single non-partisan comment on something so freaking obvious about Obama. I wasn’t even asking you all to say something nice, I was just asking you to agree on something that wasn’t a slam of the Democratic candidate – and not one of you could do it.
Honestly – that’s pathetic.
WWS:
Obama, on the other hand, to THIS DAY has never seen anything wrong with William Ayers, and has never denounced him.
He hasn’t?
“Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.”
You know, it’s one thing that you just couldn’t bring yourself to agree with me on something so obvious and so minor, but which wasn’t a slam of the Democratic candidate (so all of you partisan hacks just couldn’t bear to actually do it). But it’s quite another to just make up blatant lies about it.
Honestly, I can’t believe you all fell for that.
WWS:
Obama, on the other hand, to THIS DAY has never seen anything wrong with William Ayers, and has never denounced him.
He hasn’t?
“Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.”
You know, it’s one thing that you just couldn’t bring yourself to agree with me on something so obvious and so minor, but which wasn’t a slam of the Democratic candidate (so all of you partisan hacks just couldn’t bear to actually do it). But it’s quite another to just make up blatant lies about it.
Honestly, I can’t believe you all fell for that.
Breschau,
Oh, please. He disavowed the actions of a defunct criminal organization, but not Bill ‘my friend and mentor’ Ayers by name. The same guy that is quoted in the story, ‘he told the New York Times in September 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.”‘ And this was after doing this: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5390. Events of forty years ago? He never denouced the man who still honors the group and their actions 40 years later!
[...] it, making matters worse. One of his biggest gaffes was is tire pressure gauge energy policy, and there are good solid reasons to call the man on this silliness. So what does the tired and haggard Obama do? He calls the [...]