They operate in Calgary, but haven't yet expanded the coverage to actually include all the edges of this sprawled out city. Their map said "Coming in late 2010", but I haven't heard any updates yet. People at the Telephone Booth also suggested their downtown coverage isn't great (owing to buildings), but I haven't tested that.

What does the 'W' stand for?

The only time I've gotten stuck this winter was when I drove up to Edmonton a month ago to visit friends at uni (stuck in deep snow on a residential road, pushed out). The comparison of winter between Calgary and Edmonton is hilarious :P

Oh, and parking at WestEd the weekend before Christmas is ... insane.

Perhaps not as big a hit as you've noticed overall, but I have actually noticed more temperature dependence than what you've mentioned, but perhaps it is a result of using mpg or a result of what we each experience as cold weather. I believe I have a fairly consistent driving style, which is more conservative than most people.

I monitor this closely with my car (2010/Prius); in conditions below 0 C, it drops to about 4.8 L/100km, in conditions below -15 C, the L/100km drops to around 7.0, when it gets around -30 C it drops to about 8.5 (note this is with winter tires, which seem to effect roughly 0.5 L/100km). With my driving style I usually get around 4.2 L/100km in the city during summer (more than 5 C) on my regular all season tires.

I usually make short 10-30 minute trips without idling my car significantly beforehand. In winter, I need defrost on the entire time or I can't see through the window.

On the highway and for much longer trips (around 3 hours), I get around 4.2-4.4 L/100km. In conditions around -20 C I get around 4.8-5.2 L/100km.

That being said, in cold weather, with the heater (which is almost always on), snow/ice, and winter tires; the mileage drops to what an average (not tuned to efficiency) car gets in the best conditions, which is arguably a pretty good result.

Exactly, how you drive makes a big difference. An engine has an efficiency "sweet-spot" which is unsurprisingly not at wide open throttle :P. Having your foot on the floor the whole time is not as efficient as driving slower, or not as efficient as driving against a more powerful car which isn't maxed out.

Funny how Top Gear (and I love the show, some of the challenges are hilarious: Limousine challenge, camper challenge, etc.) missed mentioning that because it didn't fit the entertainment profile. Also note how Top Gear named the 2010 Prius their green car of the year.

I wish I had mod points. Or something actually meaningful to show my appreciation of this comment.

I buy a car for the current charge of the battery and the gas in the tank, never filled a car yet!

You're absolutely right. Even better than minivans seem to be full-sized family vans.

However, I live in Alberta (Calgary) and drive a small car (Prius), but I don't really go outside the city or through the mountains in winter. That being said, we get Chinooks, not like living in Edmonton or more North, where they get real weather.

Usually my area doesn't really have a lot of snow or precipitation, but two weekends ago, there was some interesting weather if you were going skiing, didn't really matter what you were driving (bus, semi, truck, SUV, car, coach, all in the ditch) - can't drive through an avalanche.

Minor correction: Islam is the second largest religion by number of followers. Christianity is the most common religion.

I thought it was Macker's in Australian?

It really isn't that cold in Canada where all the people live. The largest state in the U.S., much of Russia, Antarctica, Finland, etc. are all pretty much colder on a continual basis with more people than Canada. I think people think it's so cold here because we use metric (as opposed to the Americans) and that we complain so much more about it... (possibly from a strong UK cultural heritage?)

Why do you post as AC, surely someone with such strong views about the "pro Global Warming Climate Change Agena", masturbation, the human race and Buzz Lighttard would like to attract followers?

Which is why the species still exists...?

Also notice that the ranges of the trees they inhabit are predomimately more northern where they are denser, where the problem is much more widespread (BC, AB, WA, OR). Trees like Ponderosa species live in little islands (where they extend southward to Mexico).

The range isn't growing southward, but northward (i.e. towards the Canadian boreal forest, which is very dense, mostly pine and would be a huge problem), where it used to be colder, longer - on average.

(And as we've both seemingly agreed on, there are other factors which I mention previously).

Good points on the psychological implications of the word science.

I'd like to make a point on another word, "skepticism". Healthy skepticism is good, encourages critical thinking. Unbridled skepticism bordering on conspiracy of everything around you leads to paranoia and delusion, not scientific knowledge.

Somehow, like most things in life, the truth is in the middle. :)

How many pro-AGW people have you heard on ; radio, TV, internet forums, blogs, magazines, journals, mail correspondence, e-mail, ... Twitter?, ...
advocate genocide as a viable solution? There are some environmentalists who advocate having a shrinking population would be a good thing (say gradual reduction through natural means down to 1 billion, or 3 or 5 or whatever), but how many actually say; grab your rifle and shoot your neighbour. Drink some locally grown organic yam juice to celebrate?

Compare; how many people who aren't pro-AGW, or deniers, or anti-AGW, or contrarians, or libertarians, or free-thinkers (or whatever group you/they/whoever wishes to associate with; rather than get into a semantic war) attribute this "solution" to the first group?