• 32
2010 Lexus LS 600h - Click above for high-res image gallery

Lexus' LS 600h may look modest on the outside, but the 2010 version of the hybrid sedan will set you back a cool $108,000, plus an $875 delivery fee, when it arrives at dealerships soon. The flagship LS line was given a mid-cycle refresh earlier this year and the hybrid version was upgraded with the same ECO mode that boost efficiency and can also be found on the 2010 Prius for a quarter of the price. Read more about the LS 600h's updates here.

In addition, Lexus has announced "MSRP adjustments" to most of its models. The price of the GS 450h went up $900, for example. See the complete list after the jump.


[Source: Lexus]




PRESS RELEASE:

Lexus Announces Pricing for 2010 LS 600h L

Price Adjustments on select Lexus Models - New Exterior Styling Includes Revised Front Grille, Bumper and Taillights - Interior Enhancements Include Increased Trunk Capacity - New Subscription-Based Lexus Enform(TM) with Safety Connect(TM) Telematics System

TORRANCE, Calif., Nov. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Lexus today announced a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $108,800 for the enhanced 2010 LS 600h L premium luxury hybrid sedan which will arrive at dealerships later this month.
MSRP adjustments were also announced on select current 2010 Lexus models including HS 250h, ES 350, IS 250, IS 350, IS 250C, IS 350C, IS F, GS 350, GS 460, GS 450h, LS 460, SC 430, RX 350, RX 450h and LX 570. The MSRPs do not include a delivery, processing and handling fee of $875.
The Lexus LS 600h L debuts revamp styling and new luxury amenities for 2010. The 2010 LS 600h L features the following revisions: front grille with a unique design, 19-inch alloy wheels, bumper, blue-tinted taillights, license plate surround and exhaust diffusers. Also new are advanced front active headrests, side mirrors with integrated turn signals, standard Intuitive Park Assist with Advance Parking Guidance and Intelligent High-Beam. The LS 600h L is available in three new exterior colors to freshen its exterior color palette: Blue Harbor Metallic, Peridot Mica and Satin Cashmere Mica.
New and updated luxury amenities and user technology features for the LS 600h L include a driver's seat with auto slide-away; rear power sunshade; an LCD instrument cluster; Lexus Navigation system with casual language recognition; Bluetooth® phonebook download capability and music playing capability with USB/iPod® connectivity and Bluetooth audio streaming. Trunk capacity for the LS 600h L grows by nearly two cubic feet.
Other new standard features for 2010 include the Cold Weather Package with a windshield deicer, more effective heater and heavy-duty battery.

Luxury options are endless as the Premium Package II includes butterfly rear headrest and left rear seat with lumbar massage. In addition, the Executive Class Seating Package II adds 18-inch 10-spoke wheels with new design, and power rear driver's side seat and ottoman with lumbar massage.

Lexus Enform(TM) with Safety Connect(TM) is an all-new telematics system available by subscription. Lexus Enform with Safety Connect is standard on all LS 600h L. Complimentary one-year trial subscriptions of Lexus Enform with Safety Connect are included on all purchases of new LS 600h L. The Lexus Enform and the Safety Connect response center operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - every day of the year.
Lexus Insider(TM), a complimentary, opt-in service available without a subscription, is also standard on Lexus Enform equipped LS 600h L vehicles. The service offers in-vehicle audio casts with useful vehicle tips and event information, as well as insights into exclusive owners' benefits. As part of the Lexus Enform navigation platform, XM NavTraffic® and XM NavWeather(TM) are available via individual XM® subscriptions. All XM services include a complimentary 90-day trial subscription.
The price increases on other select Lexus models range from $300 for the IS 250 and IS 350 to $900 for the GS 450h and SC 430. The new prices will become effective with vehicles produced on December, 2009.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 32 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Toyota has lost a lot of my respect over the last few years.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Hmmm, so my choice is this one, or a Tesla Roadster.

      OT: Toyota was first to market... In Europe, in the segment, I would go for diesel, in the US, I would go for diesel as well :-)
        • 5 Years Ago
        I suppose that all depends on what you're looking for. Because a Tesla Roadster is a tad short on creature comforts like head and leg room. Or a back seat. Or a trunk.

        It was Yoko Ono that said that hybrids just aren't comfortable, but I think this might be up to her standards - and the other billionaires around the world. Lexus is usually the brand for people who don't have to worry about money. At all.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I think it's silly even if you have the money lying around.
      It has a bigger engine than the regular Lexus LS, and gets worse gas mileage on the highway .... wait, what?
      it's also a bit over 5000lbs. Boy is that porky!

      Also for the price of this car, you would only be a couple thousand bucks shy of being able to buy a regular Lexus LS and a Lexus HS250.

      I think the general idea of making a car a hybrid is to save gas, not use more.
      Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Part of this is explained by the price of building something few people want. However, these companies are also taking advantage of those who believe this con. "Look at us.....we care", meanwhile they're taking the enviro-cult to the cleaners. It's a damn shame, especially when you think of the billions going to subsidize this kind of crap.
        • 5 Years Ago
        *error correction - "Like the oil industry putting faith in a hydrogen infrastructure because they are *not* equipped to change".
        *clarification - When I refer to IPCC, I am referring to the "official position" of the IPCC panel (with regards to their suggestions for policy makers) and not individual scientists or even authors.

        When you read more than just a snippett of the email thread, it becomes apparent that Climitology is not as simple as the media would have you believe. And if even one assumption is wrong, the whole prediction could fall apart.

        That said, climate change has never been predicted to be a straight line (linear) increase in global temperature. The last decade is only a fluctuation in the bigger picture. The core of the global warming model is based on long term (2050 and beyond) predictions.

        ***One wrong prediction does NOT debunk the entire science.


        ------- On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

        -------- Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural
        -------- variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to
        -------- this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an
        -------- El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their
        -------- temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt
        -------- per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be
        -------- another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard
        -------- someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet alot
        -------- of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the
        -------- past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis
        -------- still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000
        -------- year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in
        -------- big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do
        -------- need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.
        -------- Such “fun”, Cheers, Steve
        -------- Stephen H. Schneider

        ----- Kevin Trenberth wrote:
        ------ Hi all
        ------ Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
        ------ warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
        ------ broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
        ------ record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
        ------ was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
        ------ previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
        ------ and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
        ------ This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
        ------ was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
        ------ freezing weather).
        ------ Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
        ------ planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
        ------ Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
        ------ doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
        ------
        • 5 Years Ago
        God Bless ya Joe and skier, I don't know where to start. I saw the e-mails and the Fox report as well. I don't recall a huge bias towards one side or the other. In fact, the reporter allowed the climate extremist to run rough shod and dominate most of the debate/interview. Her points made no sense, her accusations were baseless and she completely avoided the issue at hand. Much like you have done as well.

        The climate alarmist movement has many documented instances of manipulation of data, fear mongering, making wild accusations. It certainly hasn't been industry doing this.

        The IPCCs predictions are of such a wide spectrum that they scare the hell out of everyone and yet if normal fluctuation occurs then they can claim to be right too. It's like having a mechanic tell you the bill could be anywhere from $50 or $5,000. They admitted their study ignored the effects the sun has on temp. change i.e. solar flares and cycles. Leaving out the effects of the Sun, wow!

        They discovered the largest icberg ever seen floating further north than ever before (southern hemisphere). Glaciers have grown and retreated for centuries, long before the IBC. They have found huge amounts of C02 being released from the ocean floor that no one previously knew about. Average temp. increase is more a long the lines of 0.8 deg., but even if it were 1.1 deg. it would be well within normal change historically. You are really trying hard to ignore all the wild predictions on temp. that have not come true.

        I believed, as do both of you, that this stuff was real. When choosing to see for myself, I discovered that I had been drastically mislead. Do you really think that everyone who disagrees are lackeys of big oil? Don't you see how rediculous that is? You claim I'm a right winger and then proceed to spout off the climatealarmist.orgs to prove what? How objective you are? These activists have admitted to manipulating the facts and trying to censor anyone who disagrees. Doesn't this bother you in the slightest? If they are truly correct, why the need for the cloak and dagger style deceit?

        I've obviously touched a nerve, your responses are sraight from the handbook verbatim and you're ignoring the track record. I hope this means you're starting to wonder yourselves.

        • 5 Years Ago
        My only source of info is not Fox. I saw a fair and balanced debate, other than the climate alarmist dominating most of the time. She represented the very viewpoint I've heard many times from their side, a view you are portraying as well.

        You have some very conspiratorial views of Fox. One would think, by your comments, that you have some kind of inside info on what goes on in the studio. As much scrutiny as Fox is under by the left, I seriously doubt they could get away with half of what you are suggesting. You're preaching the talking points my friend. All the liberally biased and liberally run news orgs (fact) who are responsible for the Fox propoganda are the example of professional journalism?

        Saying there will be a 2.0-11.5 deg. increase in the next century is not science. Claiming sea level increases of 4 to 26 ft. is not science. Ignoring the effects the Sun has on our climate is not science. You really think this crap is moderate? The IPCC themselves aren't saying their predictions are moderate. The IPCC study (if you can call it that) is a farce.

        This movement as been caught and admitted to actively trying to (and successfully) censor the opposition. These aren't the actions of person or group who is comfortable with what they have said and have the data to back it up. For 30 yrs. they have been wrong everytime, period. There is scientifically based conclusions and it doesn't remotely jive with the alarmists. There's nothing vague about what the temp. change has really been in the last 100 yrs. The alarmist movement hasn't even been close.

        So despite all this, you are saying that "just in case" the radicals are right, we should follow their reccomendations. That's like saying although every scientifically based medical conclusion says otherwise, we should allow blood letting, "just in case".

        The consequences of this has already been seen. The price of everything increases with regulation. If Cap and Trade is passed, %30-%50 increase in your utilities which will also increase yet again the price index. I don't know if you have noticed, but the cost of living has increased significantly already. Eggs are up %75 over the last month. Everything is doing this. These are economic facts, not big industry "manufactured doubt" and we can't afford this based on bogus science. You know what is the biggest threat to the environment by far globally? Poverty.

        Big industry isn't perfect or pure as the driven snow (neither is the "green" industry), but they're nowhere near as evil as many want to believe. Go back to the days of Love canal, polluted oil fields, slash and burn without regeneration and try to tell me things haven't changed. That doesn't mean we couldn't do better, but the Al Gore movement purposely ignores these facts because it doesn't jive with the agenda. It's very naive to say that industry has something to gain and the activists don't. The green movement has everything to gain financially.

        • 5 Years Ago
        "I don't recall a huge bias towards one side or the other" -Bus Rand
        -When you've bought the "Fair and Balanced" line hook and sinker, you really think you are listening to journalism.

        "Her points made no sense, her accusations were baseless and she completely avoided the issue at hand."
        -Do you know what a "straw man" (or in this case, woman) is?

        Fox news does it all the time... When they have a panel "debating" a topic, they choose the most inept, clueless person to represent the other side. Then they proceed to clobber the "opposing view". They have the Fox News channel on at work, and I am so disappointed that even I could have made a better argument on national television. The "opposing view" panelist never makes the right arguments and frequently falls into traps set by the anchor.

        The other day, one of Fox's "opposing view" panelist actually admitted that an investigation should be done against the scientists named in those emails and that the Gov't should put a "stay" on all future environmental regulations until complete. The words were put in his mouth by the other Fox panelist. It was quite the goat show.

        You get your information from one viewpoint only and are tricked into thinking they allow real "opposing view" panelist on the show. If they aren't shills posing as the opposition, they are dredged up straw men.

        Oh.. back to my point.

        "I believed, as do both of you, that this stuff was real" -Bus Rand
        If you read my vintage posts from years ago (I wouldn't expect you to either) you would know where I stand. Surprise, I don't believe GW is man-made. Never have.

        Now here's the kicker. I don't believe that GW is NOT man made either. It is called agnosticism. You can call it fence riding if you like. But it is a science that that makes too many assumptions to be conclusive.

        I have read the IPCC in depth. It isn't bad science, just way too many assumptions and climatology is one of the most difficult to make predictions. All scientific predictions must make SOME assumptions, and AGW just makes too many.

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So at this point you must be patting yourself on the back because you've won, right? Not even close. Why? Because this IS true:

        "The IPCCs predictions are of such a wide spectrum that they scare the hell out of everyone and yet if normal fluctuation occurs then they can claim to be right too" -Bus Rand

        The scientists ARE the moderates. But there are extremists on both sides.

        1) On the left, you have the enviro-cults as you affectionately call them. They over blow the situation and skew the data to fit their fear mongering preconception. They take the scariest predictions to make their points. There is a wide enough spectrum to make ANY conclusion you want from the data. "These activists have admitted to manipulating the facts and trying to censor anyone who disagrees" -Bus Rand
        Fox News has blurred the lines between activists and scientists in the campaign to "manufacturer doubt".

        2) On the right, you have the money hungry industry lobby that has the sole intent of stopping regulation regardless of the environment. Which is the ONLY point I was trying to make in my last post, you kinda assumed the rest). And it doesn't stop at trying to prevent AGW regulation, but all environmental regulation hurts them. So they fight back with their campaign of IPCC slander, bias and disinformation. This IS the cloak and dagger stuff. Not the obvious set up that those emails were supposed to be. Gov't lobbying has been the real force of deceit for decades now and for much more than AGW.

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So where do I stand? Why did I seem to be defensive of the Left (enviro-cults)?
        Because although I am an agnostic to climate change (admitting to not knowing). I can make a decision. It's Pascal's wager! But not with god this time.

        It is better to begin regulating industry on the "chance" that AGW is right because the only risk is economic status-quo. (and I am not a big fan of big business anyway).

        Doing nothing (as the industry lobbyists and Fox News would like) on the "chance" that AGW is wrong means that we risk MUCH MORE. Human survival is worth economic hardship for the next few years.

        After studying climate change from a truly objective standpoint, one could only conclude that their is no conclusion. But environmental regulation of CO2 is a good goal nonetheless. The less impact humans make on this planet, the longer it might survive.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The Obama administration treats anyone who remotely criticizes them as an opponent, much like their climate alarmists friends. Sometimes they are one and the same. The comments from his energy secretary were straight out of the Al Gore handbook.

        NY times is the biggest liberal rag known to mankind. They have been caught numerous times getting their facts wrong or just liying altogether.

        The temp. data is what it is. You can go to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network yourself (as I did) if you wish. I guess you think the laws of physics are vague and what we know about gravity could go either way.

        You'd risk economic collapse to avoid global catastrophy, even when the science is non-existent. When you're out of work and in fear of losing your home maybe you'll pull your head out. There's no bubble involved in seeing food prices jump and the current situation is responsible.

        The cost of living will increase substantially if Cap and Trade is passed, count on it.

        Joe, I'm trying to discuss specifics and as the alarmist did on the biased report on Fox, you're bouncing off the walls dude. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
        • 5 Years Ago
        There is a clear history of this nonsense dating back 30 yrs. It didn't just start today and we have to wait to see if they're right. There has been 3 separate predictions made. All three were "in 10 yrs. it will be......." and none of them have been remotely accurate. They made a deliberate attempt to alter data from 100 yrs. ago til' now. That's not a 100 yrs. from now we're talking about. I can't help but notice you want to ignore the USHCN data.

        There was a time when water didn't exist on the earth. Coal comes from carbonized plant matter from the carboniferous period, petroleum from dinosaurs. So somehow these natural processes have just shut down? What do you think is happening and will continue to happen with organic matter? I'm having a hard time understanding how Hydrogen isn't an energy source, any more or less than oil, or coal, or natural gas.

        You keep trying to insult me and your comments become more incredible all the time.

        I'm very sorry you feel the way you do about your mission. I guess it's easy for me to say, but I refuse to believe the work you're doing is evil somehow. Removing a regime who treats women like cattle and used to behead them at soccer matches for entertainment can't be considered a selfish thing. Raising your kids to believe killing infidels will get you in heaven is anything but Godly. Their convert or die philosophy is why you're there and I have a hard time believing the non-jihadist afghans don't want freedom. I think you're going to find someday that God disagrees with you my friend.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "The temp. data is what it is. You can go to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network yourself (as I did) if you wish." -Bus Rand

        And what predictions did the IPCC make about the year 2009? None. There projections are several decades in the future. Newsflash! Climate change happens slowly. Even when happening much faster than normal, it is still decades before you can take another sample and compare with predictions.

        This is the same BS tactic that has right-wing fanatics blaming Obama for the economy that took 20 years to screw up and not fixing it within 10 months. Or getting out of Afghanistan. Or getting healthcare reformed. Patience people! You cannot fix the 8 years of Bush with 8 months of Obama.

        ***Just like you cannot declare IPCC's 100 year predictions wrong with 5 years of climate data.

        IPCC did not make prediction about weather this early (2009). Most of the predictions focus on 2050 and 2100.

        Every news organization makes news sensational by taking the hits while ignoring the misses. This is a classical fallicy of logic. So they take the few minor discrepancies in a prediction and advertise it. All the while, ignoring the MASSIVE amounts of data that were accurate.

        And all of your so-called data, is framed with biased expectations as too meaning. You may get the raw data from the "U.S. Historical Climatology Network". But you have subjectively altered the meaning of that data. And subjectively compared it falsely to IPCC predictions.

        • 5 Years Ago
        "Your co-workers probably tune into Fox just to watch you have a spaz. It must be great fun!" -Bus Rand

        Actually AFN (Armed Forces Network) dedicates equal time between MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. And yes, I am disgusted by the left-wing news organization just as much. Journalism died long ago. The AFN news channel stays on all the time and during my shift, I get mostly the Fox News portion.

        "I'm sure I'm delusional about the nationalized health care, so-called stimulus, and cap and trade effecting our current economic climate" -Bus Rand
        -Yes, yes you are. But not entirely. Like most reality that you fail to understand. The economy will reach an equilibrium and won't be as "Doom and Gloom" as your paranoia would like you to think. The economy of the future will cause many business models to fail, but others will rise in its place. And that fear of change is unwarranted.

        -Like the oil industry putting faith in a hydrogen infrastructure because they are equipped to change. They will fail, and renewable energy industry will rise in its place.
        That is what this whole Global Warming issue is about. The current incumbent energy industry have been enjoying record profits for so long, they FEAR change.

        "You must be either living in a bubble, your wife (or mother) must do all the shopping or you're made of money not to see the increase in the cost of living. Must be nice to be so detatched from reality, especially now." -Bus Rand
        -Actually you hit the nail on the head. I AM detached from cost of living increase here in Afghanistan. But when I get back home, I am sure things will be much more dire. But are you blaming environmental regulation, or sub-prime mortgages, or oil shock prices, or two very expensive wars?

        "Everything I've said I can back up with facts" -Bus Rand
        -Um... actually, in this thread, only skierpage and I have linked to any sources. You haven't sourced ANYTHING. Yet you claim the factual high-ground. Are you afraid every link you post will be easily show to be a right-wing propoganda outlet?

        "You have accused everyone on my side of fudging the numbers" and "Now you've accused me personally of fudging the temp. data" -Bus Rand
        -Your strawman looks very nice. But no, I haven't accused you or anyone of fudging numbers. The only ones fudging numbers are the scientists that sent those emails.
        ***I only accuse you and others of "misinterpreting" the numbers as to their meaning.

        The consensus between scientists still exists despite a few scientists "fudging numbers" to make a bigger, more sensational impact. They did not NEED to fudge these numbers because the facts of global warming never depended on rising global temperatures by 2009. The IPCC predictions are for the far future 2050 and beyond.

        From the email:
        "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."
        -- Kevin Trenberth

        Your strawman is built upon the assumption that the whole Global Warming model is based on the "CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008".

        Suprise Mr. Rand, it is not. If one bold study decided to make predictions that warming should be noticeable by 2009, then that is "ONE BAD PAPER". The vast majority of the GW models done make predictions only as early as 20 years from now.

        -If your local weatherman says that it will not rain tomorrow, and it pours all the next day, do you claim meteorology is a fraud? No! One wrong prediction (even if combined with a embarrassment driven cover-up) does NOT debunk the entire science.

        And the majority of the scientific community STILL agrees. Regardless of the pundits, lobbyists, or a few right-wing experts.

        The whole email "scandal" is being blown far out of proportion for the sole purpose of "manufacturing doubt". Which they hope to use in order to delay or even prevent Copenhagen and other conferences that will bring about environmental regulations that will harm Big industry and their ability to make Billions of Dollars.

        • 5 Years Ago
        What "billions to subsidize"? I don't think purchasers of this car get a tax credit.

        There's no con, in city driving the LS 600h is better for the environment than other obscenely large cars. It gets 22 mpg city, 20 highway and has an 8/10 air pollution score. That's 50% better in town than a Cadillac DTS. And as a cyclist I applaud any car that doesn't spew noxious fumes in my face at traffic lights, and limousines spend a lot of time at a standstill. The only comparable car that comes close is the Mercedes-Benz S400 Hybrid (19/26 mpg), a smaller slower vehicle.

        It's great to have a choice of less polluting cars in all classes, though obviously many people who care about the environment choose a smaller car. But when stars skip the luxobarge altogether and get a Prius, they still get pissed on by jealous nobodies. Poor stars, they can't win.

        @stew, @steveranieri, the LS is a platform unique to Lexus. It's the Lexus ES 350 that reuses the Camry platform (and isn't available as a hybrid).
        • 5 Years Ago
        Fox News is debunked almost everyday... but since you limit your exposure to other media outlets, you wouldn't know about it.

        Since the media moguls won very important legal battles, news corporations are not obligated to air retractions, nor are they obligated to curb bias.

        http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002
        All the debunking you will need for media coverage of the email scandal (which is about as real as the Tiger Woods "scandal").

        Cause most of what you were fed is BS. The truth lies in a very moderate and non-sensational reality. There is no conspiracy. Just words in an email taken out of context that are particularly sensitive this close to Copenhagen. But otherwise mean nothing to the actual science behind global warming.

        I'm still agnostic as to the whole debate. I just feel the need to correct the problem of listening to the media on controversial topics.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The reason a PHEV would have a larger carbon footprint during "production" than a gas engine vehicle is simple.

        The Prius has TWO DRIVE TRAINS, yes, they work in synergy mode. But Toyota needs both batteries and a gas engine. The difference in carbon between a small 1.6 liter engine and a bigger 3.8 liter V6 is just a bit more raw materials. Not much really.

        But the combination of having to build a complete gasoline car and then add an electric drive train would of course bring the carbon up significantly.

        But that whole Prius vs. Big car argument is just a shill argument to help "manufacture doubt" in going green.

        The amount of "extra" CO2 produced during vehicle manufacture is several orders of magnitude less than the CO2 emissions from operation over the life of the car.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I repeat, what billions to subsidize "crap like this"? What subsidies is the LS 600h getting? Are you referring to government R&D programs for the automotive industry?

        All reputable analyses conclude 75% to 90% of CO2 pollution occur during vehicle operation, not production. They're cited in footnotes on pages 4 and 5 of
        http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
        You seem to reject the consensus that anthropogenic increases in CO2 are harmful, but can you not grasp that moving a 3000+ pound vehicle around for 150,000 miles, which at 30mpg will consume about 30,000 pounds of fossil fuel (that itself had to be refined and distributed by a highly polluting industry), pollutes far more than assembling the car? That's why WhatGreenCar's lifecycle analysis scores the Prius at 33 and the best any Land Rover can do is 50 for the LAND ROVER 2.2 TD4. What specific part of their methodology do you disagree with?

        "2015 will be the next deadline for the 3rd seperate decade for a prediction of a 10 deg. increase in temp. and the world will fry."
        I don't know where you found that, but the IPCC 4th report summary for policymakers in 2007 said "World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century". The other IPCC conclusion is "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

        Meanwhile we're already seeing the deleterious effects of the current warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) in the 20th century: retreating glaciers and arctic ice, more severe weather, sea level rise, etc. Read http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/
        • 5 Years Ago
        When you read more than just a snippett of the email thread, it becomes apparent that Climitology is not as simple as the media would have you believe. And if even one assumption is wrong, the whole prediction could fall apart.

        That said, climate change has never been predicted to be a straight line (linear) increase in global temperature. The last decade is only a fluctuation in the bigger picture. The core of the global warming model is based on long term (2050 and beyond) predictions.

        ***One wrong prediction does NOT debunk the entire science.


        >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

        >>>>>>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural
        >>>>>>>> variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to
        >>>>>>>> this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an
        >>>>>>>> El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their
        >>>>>>>> temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt
        >>>>>>>> per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be
        >>>>>>>> another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard
        >>>>>>>> someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet alot
        >>>>>>>> of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the
        >>>>>>>> past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis
        >>>>>>>> still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000
        >>>>>>>> year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in
        >>>>>>>> big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do
        >>>>>>>> need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.
        >>>>>>>> Such “fun”, Cheers, Steve
        >>>>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider

        >>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
        >>>>>> Hi all
        >>>>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
        >>>>>> warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
        >>>>>> broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
        >>>>>> record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
        >>>>>> was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
        >>>>>> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
        >>>>>> and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
        >>>>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
        >>>>>> was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
        >>>>>> freezing weather).
        >>>>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
        >>>>>> planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
        >>>>>> Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
        >>>>>> doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
        >>>>>> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
        >>>>>> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
        >>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
        >>>>>> published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
        >>>>>> should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
        >>>>>> Our observing system is inadequate.
        >>>>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
        >>>>>> like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
        >>>>>> correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
        >>>>>> change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The
        >>>>>> PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
        >>>>>> index became positive in September for first time since Sept
        >>>>>> 2007. see
        >>>>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
        >>>>>> Kevi
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Bus Rand
        For shame that you try to turn this article into a Global Warming debate. The original blog has nothing to do with any of that.

        The whole purpose for this recent campaign (hacked emails) is to prevent an agreement at Copenhagen.

        Corporate right-wing America (with Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and WSJ leading the charge) the plan is to "manufacture doubt" in the science of global climate change.

        Bus, you have been listening to WAY too much right wing media. I can tell because you spout of the same nonsense almost verbatim.

        I have read the emails that were leaked, and the conclusions that Fox News comes up with is biased to show malicious intent.

        ***If you want to show motive by looking at all the research grant money flowing into the hands of scientists that believe in AGW, fine. But you are a hypocrite if you do not look at the money that big business stands to lose if strict emission laws are passed.

        And a corporation's motivation to "lose" billions of dollars in revenue is always greater than a research company's motivation to "gain" millions of dollars. Because compared to the financial gain of the IPCC scientists, the Oil companies alone stand to lose more.
        Hell, they spend more in gov't lobbying to prevent environmental regulation than all the IPCC scientists could stand to gain.
        And yes, they have their own "back pocket" scientists and research firms too. The so called "opposition".

        Someone is lying! Is it the scientists? Or the multi-billion dollar industry executives?

        The emails were only leaked now to interfere with Copenhagen in a desperate attempt to delay strict environmental laws that are certain to cost the corporations billions of dollars.

        "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him"... Send out 6,000 emails, and they will find one that makes them all look like liars.

        Manufactured doubt! Cigarette companies did the same when "scientists" reported that cigarettes were bad for you. The set up their own "Tobacco Research Institute" stocked with scientists who were all paid very well to spin bad science.

        "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at [global warming] research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain"
        -David Michaels
        http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm
        • 5 Years Ago
        I will have to disagree with you Joe, it is NOT several orders of magnitude less. This is all, for the sake of arguement, assuming that this cabon footprint nonsense is accurate, which it is not. From the point of view of saving energy..... yes, from saving the planet.....no.

        In case you haven't heard, a computer hacker revealed E-mails exchanged between some climate alarmists. They talked about how distraught they were that there was no recent credible data support their view and how it will effect their cause (activists, not scientists have causes). They went on to discuss how to continue to thwart the opposite viewpoint by boycotting any news orgs or science mags that reported the alternative view. How scientific of them and what a lack of confidence in their findings. I wonder why that is? Some perplexed enviro-cult members asked to see their data. Guess what? It was erased. "Whoops! Silly me!"

        I saw one of the faithful trying to defend the movement. She talked about the criminal act of the hacker (true), she mentioned the damage something like this could do to green job creation and of course, anyone dissenting from the faith was being paid by big oil (yawn). All of which had nothing to do with the report. She completely skated away from it altogether. Hmmm.......another mystery.

        Yet another example among the plethora of examples that this is a propogandized political movement, not a scientific one. No surprise to me. It was just a few years ago they were caught manipulating temperature data to show a 3-3.5 deg. increase in the last 100 yrs., something they actually admitted to being wrong about. How many of their catastrophic temp. increases have come true? Zero, nada, ziltch.

        2015 will be the next deadline for the 3rd seperate decade for a prediction of a 10 deg. increase in temp. and the world will fry. Anyone care to take a wager on how that one will work out?
        • 5 Years Ago
        I hope for everyone's sake you're right about my delusions of our future economic situation. Obama's doings are not looking good and the vast majority of economists worth their salt are freaking out far worse than I. I'd love to say I wouldn't take that wager, I guess we'll see.

        Hydrogen is not a renewable energy source, OK. So water's not renewable either I suppose.
        Hydrogen is the fuel of the future.

        Why do you keep focusing on 2009? These predictions have been made for 30 yrs. starting with it was man made global "cooling" that was going to destroy crops and the people will starve. My arguement is that every dire prediction they've made hasn't happened, their science is non-existent and their credibility on future predictions is nill. The last "in 10 yrs. the temp. will increase by 10 deg. occured six years ago. Since they couldn't prove it's increased by 3 deg. in 100 yrs., what do you think it will be 2015?

        So radical lib.orgs are sources and the U.S. Historical Climatology Network is right wing propoganda. If you'll bother to research this stuff outside the climate alarmists.orgs you'll find that the majority of scientists DON'T agree. These folks were also caught a few years back going around getting signatures from anyone that would sign it to try to prove what you believe to be true. Most of them either weren't scientists at all, or not even related to the field. Many of them were gynecologists, psychologists, etc.

        The e-mails are what they are. A supposed scientist upset about the findings not supporting his particular views is not science.

        Joe, if you're a soldier serving our country, I thank you deeply for your service in support of my freedom, even though you are nuts (ha, no really I mean it). I'm very sorry for you not being home for the holidays. Whether you want to accept it or not, you're doing God's work.

        God Bless You and Merry Christmas.





        • 5 Years Ago
        I knew you were miss informed, but your last posts confirmed how much you're out of touch with reality. Conspiracy theories are all you can think of now. Political hatred and refusing to listen to viewpoints because of political alignment. Your too far gone.

        Luckily most conservatives aren't as bad as you are.

        For political extremists like you, there is no going back. You will trust only your party affiliations and deny any other. Hating everything that comes out of a liberal's mouth because he/she is a liberal is a logical fallacy.

        Your paranoia about scientists having a grand liberal agenda is nothing more than a childish reaction to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of losing control, fear of change.

        ***You call others Alarmists but you are ringing the bell loudest with your fears of higher prices. You are just as bad as the environmental extremists, and you don't even realize it.***

        "even when the science is non-existent." -Bus Rand
        "The majority of scientists agreeing with manmade global warming is a propogated lie". -Bus Rand

        After those statements, I realized that you are one of those close minded individuals that will never trust a fact, but instead will try to find a conspiracy were there is none.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Sigh...

        Bottom line Mr. Rand is this. Neither of us are economists, climatologists, or any "ologists" that pertain to our discussion.
        Both climate change and the economy are very dynamic and poorly understood by the layman (you and I).

        So we MUST only get our information in a "prepackaged" form (from raw data, analysis, supposition, assumptions, deduction, prediction, and conclusion).

        Whether in newspapers, TV, or blogs. People do not have the education or skills to come to these conclusions by themselves. Hell, people don't even have the education or skills to know exactly what the conclusions are truly saying. Instead, they require someone to filter it into layman's terms. And that someone is a subjective, bias person. Why? Because there is too much raw information. The spectrum of possibilities is too wide. It must be narrowed. So objectivism cannot exist here, on the layman level.

        Once you understand this, you will be a GW agnostic like myself.

        The following is a list of what I DO know to be certain:

        1) Folks with Doctorates in Science must go through extensive education in their respective fields to get them. We call them scientists.

        2) Of all the world's scientists, the majority believe "humans play a role in global climate change". For every scientist you name that disagrees with this statement, there exists more than one scientist that agrees. Still a fact regardless of the shouting minority. Consensus still exists.

        3) The statement "humans play a role in global climate change" is a very moderate statement. And after reading the IPCC papers, they do not "conclude" anything beside this statement (regardless of any of the extremists quoted on Fox News).

        4) If there IS a conspiracy a foot to suppress data and scientific finding, financial motivations exists on both sides.

        5) The anti-environmental regulation lobby exists in greater number and is funded to a greater extent than the environmental lobby.

        6) Therefore, if there IS a conspiracy a foot, the most likely suspect would be the anti-environmental regulation lobby.

        7) The worst case scenario for environmental regulation is the collapse of our economy. The worst case scenario for environmental deregulation is the collapse of human civilization.

        -Both worst case scenarios are not likely. But since I am neither an economist nor a climatologist, that would be an assumption without merit.

        • 5 Years Ago
        The majority of scientists agreeing with manmade global warming is a propogated lie. Ooooooh, media matters, there's an unbiased source for you. Bye Joe, Merry Christmas.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "As much scrutiny as Fox is under by the left, I seriously doubt they could get away with half of what you are suggesting." -Bus Rand

        -They are not doing anything illegal, but they aren't "getting away" with it either.
        “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

        -Actually, it is quite legal for Fox News to do that. Since fox only has 9 hours of news programming per day... guess what, the rest is editorial. Which means they can do whatever they like because pundits aren't journalists. That goes for the many liberal media outlets as well.
        -Since there are many left side news stations that all have a degree of bias, and Fox is one of the very few right side outlets, Fox News goes WAY out into right field. You know, to keep things "balanced".

        "In an October 11, 2009 article in the New York Times, Fox articulated that its hard news programming runs from "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays" and "are objective" but makes no such claims for its other broadcasts, which are primarily of editorial and opinion journalism in nature."
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "For 30 yrs. they have been wrong everytime, period." -Bus Rand
        -wow... just wow. Ignoring the absurd use of an absolute. Sure you could manipulate the data to show how they were wrong, and I could do the same to show they are right. "public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad". Unless you have a PhD in Climatology or at the very least a masters in statistical analysis, you (nor I) can make that judgment. That conclusion is only spoon fed from propaganda machines from both sides.

        "That's like saying although every scientifically based medical conclusion says otherwise, we should allow blood letting, "just in case"." -Bus Rand
        -You are comparing CO2 emissions to blood letting? Really?

        "The price of everything increases with regulation. If Cap and Trade is passed, %30-%50 increase in your utilities which will also increase yet again the price index." -Bus Rand
        -My how the tables are on the other foot. Who is being the alarmist now?
        -Market prices and the economy in general is harder to predict than climate change. Scientists and economist study raw data and make predictions dependent on certain assumptions, but lobbyists and activists alike with agendas manipulate those predictions to come to convenient conclusions. Both use fear to make their point. But I would rather risk U.S. economic collapse than a global ecosystem failure (which would collapse the global economy as well). Both are ridiculous at this stage.

        "It's very naive to say that industry has something to gain ad the activists don't. The green movement has everything to gain financially." -Bus Rand
        -Now I am convinced you only skimmed through my post. I never said activists don't, I said that although they do have something to gain financially, the industry lobby has MUCH more. And that they pay more for lobbying the Gov't than activists personally stand to gain.

        "the cost of living has increased significantly already." -Bus Rand
        -It must be quite scary living in your fear bubble. So you want to blame environmental regulation. Not, two wars, sub-prime mortgages, Katrina, Oil Imports, removing the gold standard for the U.S. dollar? Take your pick man.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I too am a cyclist. What that has to do with anything.....well....less emissions, does it make that much of a difference in the long run? No. Look for my 8 yr. old son (regularly trains at 20 mi.) to be the next Sir Lancelot (hopefully, if that is what he wants). So much for the shameless plug.

        Yes, billions has gone to subsidize crap like this. Why you think tax credits are remotely similar I don't know. Great, it gets better mileage. Now let's look at the cost (including the so-called carbon footprint) to manufacture such a vehicle. What you find out is that the Land Rover turns out to be more eco-friendly than the Prius, as Toyota's construction process of the vehicle stands now.

        The poor stars, that is particularly hilarious. Funny how the almighty and magnanimous carbon foot print can be ignored when it's convenient. I guess the Prius makes up for the 10,000 square foot mansions and the lear jet excursions. They can afford it, more power to them. Although, it pretty much matches the single dimension thinking behind the, "it gets better mileage".

        • 5 Years Ago
        Good Morning Joe. How are you today? Well, at the very least you're extremely entertaining.
        I'm thinking you're borderline mental. Your co-workers probably tune into Fox just to watch you have a spaz. It must be great fun!

        I remember some pretty good economic years during Clinton and many during G.W.s time too. With Obama's extreme socialist lib agenda I guess we'll see won't we? I'm sure I'm delusional about the nationalized health care, so-called stimulus, and cap and trade effecting our current economic climate.

        You must be either living in a bubble, your wife (or mother) must do all the shopping or you're made of money not to see the increase in the cost of living. Must be nice to be so detatched from reality, especially now.

        Everything I've said I can back up with facts. You have chose to repudiate with rhetoric (straight from the pals of Al handbook). You have chose to accept the climate alarmist view verbatum. You have accused everyone on my side of fudging the numbers, you've accused Fox of blatent propoganda, yet you've given absolutely no evidence to support your liberal rants other then radical lib.orgs. But of course I'm the one being brainwashed here.

        Now you've accused me personally of fudging the temp. data, data I'm sure you've personally never looked at, let alone done any sampling or crunching numbers of any kind.

        This data was used to prove that the professionals were right (0.7 - 0.8 deg., well within natural fluctuation long before the industrial revolution), the ones who don't exist in your mind. It also proved, that the people you're defending purposely and intentionally "fudged" their numbers in order to support the cult. They admitted they were wrong but went on to make their wild predictions for the future.

        I know this to be true, to be absolute fact not because I took either side's word for it, but because I used the data to do my own study. 3 separate studies, 2 to 3 samples taken from each state, each time, making sure I didn't use the same data twice. Now, since you're so sure I'm "fudging", you're more than welcome to do the same.















        • 5 Years Ago
        "Hydrogen is not a renewable energy source, OK. So water's not renewable either I suppose.
        Hydrogen is the fuel of the future." -Bus Rand
        -**rubs temples in frustration** Read some more of AutoBlogGreen... pick up a book about science instead only rhetoric. You will see that "source" is wrong. "Carrier" is right.

        -Hydrogen is only as "renewable" as the true "energy source" is that produces it. Natural gas produces 97% of the hydrogen molecules we have on Earth today... and that ain't renewable.
        Water (dihydrogen oxide) is more synonymous with carbon dioxide than it is with any energy souce. Water is the oxidize (already burnt) state just like CO2 is the oxidize state of fossil fuels.

        "you'll find that the majority of scientists DON'T agree" -Bus Rand
        -Still looking for that credible link that says so. If your gonna argue, at least try to appear believable. Even your Fox News and Wall Street Journal do not make those ridiculous claims.

        "The e-mails are what they are. A supposed scientist upset about the findings not supporting his particular views is not science." -Bus Rand
        -Finally something we sort of agree on. Then why is everyone claiming this is the death nail for Global Warming science?

        "every dire prediction they've made hasn't happened, their science is non-existent and their credibility on future predictions is nill" -Bus Rand
        -Talk about an unscientific approach. Every dire prediction? What about the fact that most, almost all, of the predictions are set well into the future and do not pertain to the last decade? Science is non-existent?
        ***I take it from your "brilliant" analysis on Hydrogen being an "energy source", that you don't have any formal scientific or engineering education.***
        -It is no wonder most post-graduate intellectuals in science or engineering turn out to be left of center (statistically true). There must be something about education that makes extreme conservatives like you so unappealing.

        I am a soldier (although not a combat soldier), and you are welcome sir. As I gladly volunteer (even for combat).

        And no, I don't believe I am doing God's work. Only the work of our Commander in Chief, first G.W. Bush and now B. Obama (who were elected by the citizens of the U.S.) I don't think God would much approve. Maybe the old testament God... but certainly not the new testament god. Jesus was a big flaming Liberal too. And I am SURE He wouldn't approve.

        Merry Christmas Bus
        • 5 Years Ago
        "I'm very sorry you feel the way you do about your mission. I guess it's easy for me to say, but I refuse to believe the work you're doing is evil somehow. " -Bus Rand

        Whoah! I never said any of that. But I guess you have proven that misinterpretation is your speciality.

        I feel VERY good about the mission here. I signed on after Sept. 11th with hopes of doing good work here. I got diverted to Iraq for the first deployment but that's another story. I agree with the reasons you describe. I just don't think it is "The will of God".

        It IS the will of the men and women of the U.S. to defend their country or choose to send their military to defend it for them. The Afghanistan campaign is a good cause but it isn't a Holy Crusade coming from God.

        If you believe anyone who justifies war or killing because they claim a revelation from God (even Presidents), then you need to reexamine yourself.
      • 5 Years Ago
      108K and no plug? Congrats Toyota; you managed to make the Tesla Roadster and Fisker Karma look like bargains.

      • 5 Years Ago
      I guess I'm not a Lexus kind of guy, when I look at that I see a Toyota Camry and think it should cost in the mid 20's, maybe low 30's if really optioned out. I'm sure it's really nice though.

      Stew
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is just a Camry with Lexi$ badging!! BAD BAD move Toyoda!!
    • Load More Comments