I think this is a great idea! This should be adopted across all 50 states. You can get this info online at fueleconomy.gov, but you have to be a more active consumer to do that. This way everybody gets the info without having to go out of their way.

Yet another rather pathetic example of a tribe incapable of admitting defeat. Here we are being sold the idea of two different emission categories: Global Warming Score and Smog Score.

Problem is the science to support Global Warming has evaporated. Even a last bastion government stalwart like NOAA has admitted their satellite altimeter measures of sea level rise are flawed and unremarkable.

Here we see the ARB's unsupportable claim to include CO2 as 95% of the GHG "pollutants." Interesting that ARB and the AGWs continue to forget that some 85% of atmospheric GHG is water vapor. Yet they do not include H2O in the GHG cluster - probably because it would make them look ridiculous.

And to further bamboozle the public they put AC refrigerant leakage (a true ozone depleter) in with GHG traces N2O and CH4. All three of these traces belong in one single category: Smog Score.

ARB needs to get with the current science on GHGs. WE have no evidence of global warming from CO2 emissions. We have huge evidence that an increase of CO2 atmosphere from 0.0385 to 0.0500 ppm will fertilize terrestrial plant life as it has in the geological past.

It is surprising to see Cali and Goodvenor Arnold continue to support these deceptions that cost the taxpayer and business community dearly. And stubbornly refuse to accept the quiet retirement of AGW.

Yes, water vapor is a powerful GW influencer, which is another advantage of Wind and Photovoltaics powerplants over water cooled thermal electric generation facilities, particularly in the drought stricken west. However, Water vapor does not have the residence time of other GHG emissions, so it has not been targeted by policy makers.

Similarly, the growing waste heat from industrial/power generation facilities, and expanding vehicle fleets also contributes to the Earth's fever, but again it does not accumulate, so is only attacked indirectly by higher energy efficiency standards.

But you have raised and interesting point for policy makers that believe in AGW, i.e., attack the problem on a system-wide basis, and always take the least expensive steps first. That may require greater focus on energy and cooling efficiency, to reduce the burden imposed by waste heat and water vapor generated by human activities.

The difficult part is to tell the truth. Which means acknowledging the gross misstatements by AGW enthusiasts. And to acknowledge the corrupt use of grant money to peddle influence and "consensus." Which of course is non-existent in science on this level.

Next is to redirect efforts to mitigate non-sustainable energy activity. That would include the whole portfolio of renewable energy resources, conservation, transport electrification, transition to syn gases and the unveiling of new, undiscovered uses of atomic H for catalyzing excess energy. The goal: Global Energy Independence.

This will result in an entire race of beings climbing aboard the same page. And it will raise consciousness for better stewardship of the planet, and its inhabitants.

Or just shuffle off the mortal coil... (less expensive)

The AGW farce is unravelling. H2O is the primary GHG and the liquid oceans regulate the total amount of GHGs in th atmosphere in a "saturated GHG " enviornoment.

AGW proponents have refused to get realistic about CO2 residency times and conitnue to asert withou tcorrobeoration everymore incredible theories fo rextended CO2 residency times, to make the infintesimal warming power of CO2 more credible. First it was 10 years and one-way trap door solubility. Then 25, then 100, then 300 years. Now indetermnate Thousands. What ever they need. Meanwhile Henry's Law of Solubility says 5.7 years, as it continues to say 5.7 years for CO2 residency, all along. Measurement of Carbon 14 decay says 5.7 years Measurenment of other atmospheric remnants of open air nuclear testing say 5.7 year residency. And worst of all for the religious AGW freaks, finally the IPCC has said it will return to 5.7 years as CO2 residency time in the armosphere in the next IPCC AR5. Buh Bye... AGW.

It's encouranging when the average new car tailpipe exhaust in LA is cleaner than the ambient air quality but that's the facts. Did I mention that 56 2008 car models have PZEV or ATPZEV ratings from CARB. That is ZERO POllution folks. The job is almost done there too.

The difficult part is to tell the truth. Which means acknowledging the gross misstatements by AGW denialists.

Since you were blinded by your projection, I fixed that for ya.

Meanwhile Henry's Law of Solubility says 5.7 years, as it continues to say 5.7 years for CO2 residency, all along.

Someone needs to take another look at the Keeling curve... whoops, that would pop his own personal bubble of denial.

Those who use the pejorative "denialist" to label good men of science who disagree with AGW theory, only lump themselves in with hardened anti-Semites.

Only an anti-Semite would disrespect the six million Jews murdered by the World War II Na*zi Regime - by calling a skeptic of man-made climate change a "denialist."

good men of science who disagree with AGW theory

You mean people like TV weathermen?  They're not scientists, they're closer to actors.

Only an anti-Semite would disrespect the six million Jews murdered by the World War II Na*zi Regime - by calling a skeptic of man-made climate change a "denialist."

Yeah, if you oppose

• the threat of massive shifts in climate rendering agriculture impossible on formerly productive land, or
• sea-level rise swamping the world's biggest cities and fertile river deltas and leaving people with neither homes nor means of support, plus
• the northward and upward propagation of tropical diseases and their vectors, which already kill millions

... if you oppose those things which could kill hundreds of millions through displacement, starvation and disease, you have no sympathy for Jews (whose situation in Israel would be affected also, though both rainfall and shoreline)?

You denialists seem to have difficulty with the reasoning process.

EP:

I have been to Treblinka and seen what happened there and at other Na*zi concentration camps. My father spent four years fighting the Naz*i regime. Your words offend every man and woman who opposes Naz*ism and the devastating effects of the Holocaust.

You know perfectly well there are thousands of fully qualified, good men and women of science who dispute man-made climate change. To attempt to paint them with the brush of a Holocaust denier is indicative of the fanatical fringe hardliners like yourself are on.

The reasoning is extraordinarily simple:

1) Science is built by supporters and challengers of theories such as man-made global warming.

2) There is absolutely NO convincing evidence man-made CO2 has caused global warming.

3) Neither a supporter nor a skeptic of any theory of global warming qualifies them as a Holocaust denier.

The more you disrespect the six million Jews murdered by Naz*i war crimes - and the men and women who fought to end that fascist regime - the more the global warming movement takes on a mantle of disturbing dysfunction.

Meanwhile, citations for your three imaginative threats?

I have been to Treblinka and seen what happened there and at other Na*zi concentration camps. My father spent four years fighting the Naz*i regime.

Mine was in the service in WWII also, and HIS father served in the US Navy in WWI.  Plus, my mom's brother fought in WWII.  I support the defense of Israel completely.  My d*ck's definitely bigger than yours.

Your words offend every man and woman who opposes Naz*ism and the devastating effects of the Holocaust.

Your attempt to assocate "denial" with the Holocaust alone and paint any other use as anti-Semitic is a rhetorical cheap shot, appeal to emotion and complete non-sequitur. 

You know perfectly well there are thousands of fully qualified, good men and women of science who dispute man-made climate change.

I know that the "scientists" touted as "disputing" AGW are mostly not working in anything related to the field (fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority), or are not scientists at all (e.g. TV weathermen, whose "authority" comes from being well-known:  the fallacy of appeal to celebrity).

To attempt to paint them with the brush of a Holocaust denier

... comes entirely from your overblown rhetoric arising from deranged thinking processes.  They are no more connected in reality than the two opposite meanings of the word "sanction".

Meanwhile, citations for your three imaginative threats?

Imaginative?  I couldn't come up with any of this stuff, and it's sufficiently "in your face" even here on GCC that the only reason you don't take it seriously has to be willful blindness; you certainly never bothered searching for it yourself.  Here's what you'd get from clicking "I feel lucky", in detail:

• the threat of massive shifts in climate rendering agriculture impossible on formerly productive land
  
  Search terms "climate change agriculture shift", first hit: ... the predicted change in African crop revenue ranges from a loss of 14 percent in the mild climate scenario to 30 percent in the harsher climate scenario.
• sea-level rise swamping the world's biggest cities and fertile river deltas and leaving people with neither homes nor means of support
  
  Search terms "climate change sea level deltas", first hit: The Nile Delta is one of the most heavily populated and intensely cultivated areas on earth. Despite covering only 2.5 percent of Egypt's total land area, the Nile Delta harbors over one-third of the national population and nearly half of all crops. Standing less than two meters above sea level, however, it is also extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
• the northward and upward propagation of tropical diseases and their vectors, which already kill millions
  
  Search terms "climate change tropical diseases", first hit: Climate change affects the occurrence and spread of disease by impacting the population size and range of hosts and pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks (McMichael, 1996; McMichael et al., 1996; Epstein et al., 1998; Epstein, 1999). In general, warmer temperatures and greater moisture will favor extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms such as insects, rodents, and snails. This in turn leads to an expansion of the zone of potential transmission for many vector-borne diseases, among them malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and some forms of viral encephalitis.

That's your ticket for the clue train.  Get on.

"Mine was in the service in WWII also, and HIS father served in the US Navy in WWI. Plus, my mom's brother fought in WWII. I support the defense of Israel completely. My d*ck's definitely bigger than yours."

A braggadocio, especially one with p*nis envy, makes an argument equivalent to that of a schoolyard bully.

"Your attempt to assocate "denial" with the Holocaust alone and paint any other use as anti-Semitic is a rhetorical cheap shot, appeal to emotion and complete non-sequitur. "

The entire reason your fringe has stooped to use the word "denier" is EXACTLY to infer a Holocaust denier. Live with your tribe's decision.

"scientists" touted as "disputing" AGW are mostly not working in anything related to the field (fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority), or are not scientists at all"

Your ruse to claim any expert opposed to AGW "inappropriate" is a rhetorical cheap shot, appeal to emotion and complete non-sequitur (sic).

On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."

Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT's atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences.

"They are no more connected in reality than the two opposite meanings of the word "sanction".

You continued denial of your true intent and purpose is indicative of the pathological state commonly referred to as "lying."

Your "clues" offer ZERO evidence for global warming resulting from man-made atmospheric CO2. That's YOUR ticket to ride.