“Product Specs

MaxLife is formulated with extra anti-wear additives to exceed the engine protection requirements of ILSAC GF-3 and GF-4, and API SL/SM standards and is safe for use in new and rebuilt engines, and will not void new car warranties.”

That’s it.  Believe it or not, those are supposed to be “product specs”. I also noticed that the description of MaxLife includes this wording “The synthetic blend formula…”   But in their FAQ’s they have this specific Q&A:

“Is MaxLife motor oil a synthetic product?

No. MaxLife is made with premium base oils and special components to help slow the aging process of a vehicle’s engine.”

Clever, huh? They tell us it’s synthetic, but they also clarify by telling us it’s not. So then maybe it’s not really false advertising after all?

But then in another MaxLife FAQ, are these gems, listed as #7 and #10:

“Has MaxLife always been a synthetic blend?

MaxLife Synthetic Blend motor oil is actually the same product as regular MaxLife. MaxLife has always been a synthetic blend oil; we just now label the product that way. It is the same oil as before. As long as you have used MaxLife, you have used synthetic blended oil.”

Why is there no mileage limit given on MaxLife Synthetic motor oil? Mobil 1 says 15,000 miles and Amsoil says 25,000 miles?

Valvoline recommends following the oil change intervals recommended in your owner’s manual no matter what type of oil you use. Most manufacturers recommend every 3-months/3,000 miles.

So Valvoline is deliberately continuing the same give-me-money 3,000 mile oil change scam that GM and California have organized to end. And sorry, but what manufacturer recommends a 3,000 mile engine oil drain interval? GM’s OLS system averages 8,500 mile oil changes, and that assumes mediocre API Licensed petroleum.

A brief background is important for the majority of Americans who have no idea about the petroleum oil scam of the decade: It is only legal in America to sell Group III (hydrocracked petroleum) oil as “synthetic”, and the shelves are full of these supposed Big-Oil “synthetics”. Why? Because their studies showed that after 25 years of effort Amsoil had succeeded in bringing the synthetic-oil-market growth to critical mass, and demand was beginning to take off. Since a growing number of their customers were willing to pay big dollars for synthetics in order to save money and gain much better performance and value, Big Oil needed a solution. So in 1999 they flexed U.S. muscles, quietly redefining “synthetic”  in order to deceive the public and cash in on the profits. 

So with the new definition of a “synthetic” being a Group III (petroleum) as background, I have to conclude that MaxLife is only a Group II, perhaps with some synthetic additives (they claim 30% synthetic in one spot): that’s as mediocre as oil can get and still (barely) pass the API minimums. Clear and factual information? Comparative test data? Forget about it.

The Treasury Department teaches that you have to know what real money is, in order to spot a counterfeit.  So because most people have never seen one, here’s a real motor oil product data page.  And here’s my idea of comparative engine oil test data.  Keep in mind that those are the industry benchmark ASTM tests that all the oil companies use  – but to the public it’s as if they don’t even exist. Only one oil company publishes meaningful test results, they’re done by the same certified independent labs that do much of the API testing, and in over 30 years of publishing results against named engine oils with embarrasing performance gaps, they’ve never once been accused of falsified data. (Hmmm.)

In conclusion, here’s my translation out of Valvoline marketing-hype into reality:
All oils that meet any minimum requirements will “help slow the aging process” more than canola oil, but you can feel good about using our run-of-the-mill-mineral-oil because we’ve studied how the magic “synthetic” word, combined with our copy writing and label-designing skills, can give you warm emotional fuzzies about paying too much money for it.

Suggestion: don’t be a gullible consumer. If you educate yourself you can triple your remaining vehicle life. The million mile van used the best synthetic lubes and nanofiber filtration technology, and is still running strong on the original untouched transmission with 150,000 mile synthetic tranny fluid changes.

If they were merely sharing their opinion and stating their credentials, people wouldn’t have much heartburn over it. But to make false statements like that, irresponsibly leading people away from the superior performance and lower costs of advanced technology, gets me irate.

So, for the record, let’s establish qualifications before we talk about facts. I’m a B.S. degreed Mechanical Engineer. I’ve been in industry for more than 20 years, the last 5 as an engineering manager, and have spent more than the last 10 in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, where most automotive parts are made and a lot of value-added engineering is done to improve the products and manufacturing processes. As a matter of fact, while the OEM has some involvement when a subassembly has a defect, guess who is required to do an “8-D” root-cause analysis, implement corrective actions, and monitor to make sure the CA’s are effective and it can’t happen again?

In 2004 I bought a 2002 GMC Sierra with the Duramax turbodiesel and Allison transmission package. That was the beginning of a journey of extensive personal research into vehicle drivetrain lubrication and filtration, and a growing passion to tell people the astonishing facts I learned. I became an Amsoil dealer, not only to help people get literature and best pricing, but to continue learning.

Opinions are as worthless as armpits – everyone has one, but most of them are smelly. And you can see some of the smelly opinions in detail on this “scamsoil” page for Amsoil skeptics, which corrects Amsoil myths using facts.  I tell people what I know, and the conclusions I can reasonably prove with facts and data. So let’s talk about facts. But before I can get far, I have to explain the common sense backdrop to correctly “frame” the facts.

I find it interesting how one-sided the online forums often are: if an Amsoil dealer makes a statement, he’s often dissed, disbelieved, and ridiculed – even if he’s an engineer. If he’s not a “supporting sponsor” of the forum who is paying for the right to make “commercial” comments, he may get warned, censored or kicked off by the moderators for “advertising” helpful facts or suggestions. However, no one seems to question if naysayers have ever worked for petroleum suppliers, if they have an engineering degree, or if they have had training sponsored by “big oil” – and they aren’t required to be a paying sponsor to make glowing recommendations of petro oils. Couple that with a forum’s discussion environment of one or two pararaph comments, and the deck is strongly stacked against open an discussion of engineering facts and test data.

Executive Summary-in-One-Paragraph of the
Facts on API Certification of Synthetic Engine Oils
Under Their EOLCS:

Unfortunately for consumers, the API has no Certification for high performance: only minimum performance. Further, the API provides no reasonable certification options for genuine Group IV and Group V synthetics, deliberately maintaining a skewed structure that multiplies synthetic test costs by several times. In addition, the API Certification adds content restrictions (not required by the SAE, not required by the OEM’s) that prevent long drain intervals and prevent very low wear rates. So the world of API Licensing implies that high-profit mediocre products are high performance, it ensures that only petroleum-company oils can be cost-effectively Certified by the API, and it ensures that the world’s highest-performance products cannot be API Licensed/Certified at all. Fortunately for consumers who want high performance and high value, the API Certification monopoly is a voluntary trademark Licensing program that does not matter in vehicle warranties.

Now, that’s stunning information for many people.  So let me clarify:

Close examination of the OEM Owners’ Manuals shows that engine oils must meet the API/SAE Service Grade requirements that the OEM states. 

Why? That is the entire purpose of the Service Grades: they are the legally approved and required method for the OEM to specify how the lubricants must perform in order to maintain warranty coverage in the rare possibility of damage caused by oil failure. Like my Duramax engine owners manual, the OEM may also include a cleverly confusing blend of stating first that API Licensed oils are Recommended, then saying that the API donut is required showing Service Grades (clever, but meeting Service Grades is required, not the donut). In other words, a number of Owners Manuals have adopted (API-suggested?) wording that implies API Licensed oils are a requirement, while also stating that they are recommended. And enough Americans have poor reading comprehension to enable this ploy to be very effective in spreading warranty fears. By implying it’s required, the API and the OEM both get most of the benefits of it being required, without the expensive legal liabilities from falsely stating that it is a requirement. 

The petroleum oil companies have been breaking records for the last three years in prices and in profits – tens of billions in US dollars. In 1999, by earning a first-in-the-world American ruling that they could hijack and redefine the term “synthetic” to include petroleum oils, they began flooding the US market with their Group III petroleum “synthetics”. That “bait and switch” is clearly unethical but technically legal, and very profitable. But for the twenty-seven years between 1973 and 2000, the petroleum companies were very active in developing business strategies against synthetic oils, which they did through captive-audience-disinformation in technician training, and through marketing strategies.

These were “necessary” business tactics because of the inherently superior traits of synthetics – specifically AMSOIL. Because until Mobil 1 was introduced, AMSOIL was the only synthetic oil in the automotive/truck market.  And they have been the undeniable leader in the development of synthetic automotive lubricants and, more recently, high-performance synthetic filtration for automotive – using Donaldson nanofiber filter media.

In fact, AMSOIL was a stunning polar-opposite enigma to the oil companies. Profitable refining was all about the minimum improvements you invested in the crude-oil-extracted product that would still pass the Service Grade requirements. AMSOIL was all about pushing the performance envelope to formulate and create the highest performance base-stocks and additive packages that technology could allow, which is why their primary engine oils have ALWAYS been 25,000 mile / 1-year oils. Petroleum corporate profits were about how much they could get out of people’s pockets.  Amsoil profits were based on creating the highest possible performance, educating the consumer on their greater value, and trusting that smart consumers would be willing to pay a higher price for a premium product that would save them money. 

And I should note that in 1973, Amsoil introduced the first API Licensed synthetic motor oil: they are not a stranger to API Certification, but the cutting-edge leader in synthetics. And their dramatically superior performance in the API testing was an immediate embarrassment, and a clear threat, to the petroleum industry. Almost from the beginning, testing the waters with Mobil 1 to capture and control the fledgling synthetic market, petroleum analysts seemed to understand that Amsoil could not be beaten in performance or value – it would have to be with strategy. 

Because the international petroleum corporations have a vested financial interest in controlling what the market, the consumers, and the mechanics believe about synthetics, you have to be careful to sweep marketing slogans and myths aside and look at data and facts instead.

FACT:  Amsoil is the king of comparative performance data, publishing the API/SAE/ASTM test data against named competitive products, and even putting graphs right on the sides of their packages.  That data is legally liable for accuracy (false advertising), all the oil companies perform those ASTM tests, and yet Amsoil’s certified ASTM/API/SAE data has never once been challenged… in over 3 decades of published test data.  

Oooh. Isn’t that an embarrassing problem for Amsoil critics?  Yes. But not if you ignore it, or state that Amsoil has never shown data to back their claims. The tactic seems to be that by stating that arrogantly and emphatically, then people will believe them rather than doing a Google search for themselves and leading others to the test data.

FACT: the API is the American Petroleum Institute, whose stated #1 purpose is to promote the interests of the petroleum companies. They originally worked with the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) to develop and establish the API Service Classifications, such as SL or CI, so that the vehicle and equipment OEM’s could specify (“spec”) the minimum oil performance requirements. And THAT is all that can legally be required for warranty – period. Who guarantees the performance of oil that is not API Licensed? No-one but the oil marketer and manufacturer.

Now enter the clever development of the API Licensing to display their registered trademark “starburst” and service “donut” symbols. If petroelum companies pay money for them to look over their ASTM oil testing results, and their other guideline requirements are met in addition to the SAE classifications, they let you display their trademark. Who guarantees the performance of API Licensed oil? No-one but the oil marketer and manufacturer.

Again, let me emphasize that API Licensing (or Certification) is no more required for warranties than an NFL logo is required in order to manufacture a nice sports jersey. But if you advertise the jersey as a tank top or Arctic parka, you could have a legal problem with false advertising.  Of course, a licensed NFL team logo is not required in order to make a great-quality jersey, and no-one in their right mind would seriously claim that jerseys without an NFL team logo on them are poor quality. But the API has succeeded in developing a strong emotional and/or mental impression that their logos are required in order to have good oil. Clever marketing, but deceptive – and completely false.

Even worse, it’s the opposite that’s true. It’s the API Certified oils that produce major sludge problems in many 1997 – 2004 engines from a number of OEM’s including Toyota, Lexus, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Saab, causing fatal engine damage as early as 50,000 miles in perfectly-maintained vehicles. Surprise! Petroleum oil breaks down easily — haven’t we known that for several decades? Yet vehicles using Amsoil do not have these problems, and Saab experts note that AMSOIL protects and performs better in the Saab 9′s than anything they’ve found. What this shows is that you are at lowest risk by using Amsoil, but at the highest risk by using the bare-minimum quality of API Licensed oils.

You see, according to the API’s own 1509 EOLCS document, their engine oil licensing only verifies MINIMUM performance levels. It doesn’t tell consumers how well the products performed in testing, or provide any way to rank comparative performance, or identify better performance lubricants. But the full picture is even worse for unsuspecting consumers. The API has also created clever-sounding but empty rationals to justify special formulation restrictions for API Licensing, beyond the SAE Service Classification standards. It just so happens that if your products are higher performance than the oil companies want to make (producing much lower wear rates, or lasting three times longer), then your products can’t be API Licensed… unless you “dumb down” your performance to their low standards. And it just so happens that AMSOIL synthetic engine oils, the worldwide benchmark gold standard in the lubrication industry, can’t be API Licensed because AMSOIL won’t downgrade their performance to the level of petroleum mediocrity. Isn’t that a convenient coincidence?

Yes, AMSOIL does have the XL line which use the highest grade Group III base stocks, and are the highest performance products that can be produced under the API’s manipulative marketing requirements. And so they are API Licensed, and priced lower than any of Amsoil’s other oils. But most consumers shouldn’t use these 10,000 mile XL oils when they can buy the much better value of 25,000 or 35,000 mile synthetic engine oils from AMSOIL that blow away the performance of every product on the market.

API Licensing means the product has mediocre performance, has paid a fee, and has agreed to pay royalties on their sales in order to display registered trademark logos on their labels: the API’s starburst and donut.

The use of a dramatically superior synthetic lubricant is a dramatically superior choice that does NOT cause failures nor cause the OEM to deny warranty coverage, and the few Dealer service managers who claim otherwise are simply wrong – and wouldn’t dare put their statements in writing.
A dealer can claim that using a vastly superior Amsoil engine oil voids the warranty because it isn’t API Licensed, but that’s logically ridiculous and completely false, both scientifically and legally.

Let’s talk more test data, more facts. API Licensing is based on – guess what? ASTM tests. The ASTM is the world’s leading organization of engineered testing, and their work includes extensively detailed test criteria and lab certifications to make sure that test data is repeatable and accurate.  Together with the API and the SAE, they devise tests that measure dozens of specific lubricant properties.  In fact, in the API’s 1509 EOLCS, I counted 47 listed tests.  43 of those are ASTM tests.

Most of these tests are done with equipment on a lab “bench”, but a few of the tests involve engine stands.  I don’t have room or time to get too deep here, so I’ll summarize like this: AMSOIL oils not only perform at the highest levels in all the ASTM tests, but their performance is so far above petroleum oil in some cases that it makes the test look downright wimpy and almost worthless.  For example, the expensive engine tests were developed as a faster way to indentify the minimum oil performance that’s required to keep engines from failing under warranty when using petroleum oils, but for high performance synthetics they seem to mean little.  This example of stunning performance in the Sequence IIIF engine test is why, for the most part, AMSOIL relies on measured long-term performance in oil sampling analysis databases of hundreds of millions of miles in commercial fleet vehicles.  After all, if you’ve paid a lot of money to perform an unheard-of triple-length IIIF test, which showed the AMSOIL synthetic engine oil viscosity flatlining at 60% below the test’s failure threshold, why pay to perform such a whimpy petroleum-oil test on a high performance synthetic?  Sure, it stunned the lab techs, but does it give you more valuable data than you can get from oil sampling analysis of real-world engines in severe-duty commercial service?  No.

What’s the best way to test anything? Against a known benchmark-best.  That’s what Amsoil does.  They have the best performance, so their focus is developing by exceeding their previous performance in ASTM bench tests and actual fleet sampling - because no engine test comes close. Amsoil IS the benchmark, and real vehicle results are the ultimate measurement.

Still have doubts?  Mobil 1 is API Licensed, and did a marketing campaign that claimed “nothing beats Mobil 1″.   But if that’s true, and if API Licensing means quality, then why does AMSOIL beat Mobil 1′s pants in the ASTM tests?  And why does Exxon-Mobil publish a users’ direct request for THEIR ASTM test data compared to Amsoil, and give them nothing but marketing smoke and mirrors?  And if Mobil 1 is really that great, where is THEIR million mile van report and teardown analysis from a certified Lubrizol engine rater? Where is anyone else’s million-mile teardown analysis?

Those are the facts. As a mechanical automotive engineer who is a studied lubrication and filtration specialist, I know that AMSOIL is the gold standard in lubrication performance, and that their durability makes them cheapest to use, and that they improve fuel economy, and that’s why I use AMSOIL lubes and filters in ALL my vehicles. There’s a reason why Amsoil dealers are persistent – 75% of them become dealers because they were so impressed with Amsoil performance in their own vehicles that they wanted to tell others about Amsoil.

So I challenge the “scamsoil” trash trolls to either put up their credentials and their facts, or shut up and leave the petroleum victims alone. Consumers have been scammed long enough by petroleum marketers and their brainwashed pet-droids, so enough with the lying and manipulating. I’m a big boy, so prove your point to me rather than bullying people who don’t know enough to stand up to the BS.  If you’re right, then get me on your side with data. Here’s one of my vehicle oil analysis reports, and here’s a video on how to take an oil sample from any engine.  So take an oil sample from your chosen oil prior to an oil change to AMSOIL, then take an oil sample after the recommended service interval with AMSOIL.  Show me where your oil sampling analysis proves some petroleum oil – or any synthetic oil – outperforms AMSOIL. 

AMSOIL could stoop to “dumbing down” all their synthetic oils to the mediocre API Licensing requirements, and that would give them astounding increases in profit margins. But they won’t stoop to that level, and that’s a really good thing for all AMSOIL’s customers and dealers.

Yes, learning to evaluate and compare design and performance takes a lot of work. You have to learn your field well, you have to analyze constantly, and you have to suspect everything. And yes, being an advocate for one or two products can make an engineering expert sound like a biased salesman. But I think a genuine expert has his greatest value in researching and identifying the “benchmark” performance standards, and recommending and applying them properly for the greatest customer benefit. I think it’s an engineer’s job to deliver the highest performance/value possible. I’ve done that repeatedly in multiple industries and processes, and have always been able to deliver a strong competitive advantage – usually at least an 80% improvement over what “experts” say is possible.

One paperclip is usually as good as another, and when they aren’t it doesn’t matter. But the more complex the field, the more likely that there is a world technology leader that brings stunning performance and great value to the table. In lubrication fluid and filtration performance, AMSOIL is that leader. We’ve seen it “up close and personal” in our own vehicles, it reflects what the test data and oil analysis reveal, and we know that when you understand the benefits of AMSOIL synthetic lube and filter technologies, you’ll see big benefits for your vehicles and equipment.

Marketing is worthless. AMSOIL is about performance… about data… about being least expensive to use and providing the greatest protection at the same time. That’s real value. I became an AMSOIL dealer because I recognized the best synthetic oils and the cost savings they bring. Amsoil has 25,000 and 35,000 mile oils that when you finally change them are still outperforming most oils when they’re first poured out of their bottles. Hey, show me a better or more cost-effective engine oil than AMSOIL, and I’ll recommend it. Show me a better filter than nanofiber technology, and I’ll recommend it. But my experience says you’ll waste a lot of time looking. Other companies could technically do what Amsoil does, but they won’t — because giving their customers the best value and highest performance possible is the Golden Rule, which takes too much talented dedication and is a violation of their corporate business strategy.

I recently got this e-mail from Tom, an engineer:
Brian, I’m thinking that you’ll have such a field day with the following article (Mark Barnes, “Is There a Lubrication Silver Bullet?” Machinery Lubrication Magazine. January 2006), that I was bound and determined to send it to you . . .can you let me know what you think of it?

My response:

Tom –
Yeh, that’s an interesting article alright. I’d say that if they are going to take “Noria’s strict vendor neutral policy” seriously, Mr. Barnes and a couple of cohorts ought to sign up as Amsoil Dealers and go to Amsoil U. They seem to try hard to be objective, but wow – when you’re smack dab in the middle of billions of dollars of international oil company influence, backed by years of anti-synthetic propaganda, I don’t see how neutral they can be if they don’t get the inside perspective of the one company who has most defined synthetics and has battled big-oil agendas for decades.

At the same time, I’ve seen this scenario before from people considered true experts in their field. Perhaps I’m reading too much into his comments, but it sure sounds familiar. Try this on for size:
About 2-3 years ago I took a new seminar on Global Process Control from one of the most recognized international engineering consultants in the field. 25+ yrs experience, client list history probably as long as your leg, on at least three continents. Yet I saw some serious inaccuracies in his perspectives for one particular high-visibility process – he was taking the entire range of the most expensive high-volume equipment in the industry, and saying it was all a waste of money and low-balling it’s value and performance as a whole. “Throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

Over dinner that night, I asked him if all his bad equipment experiences hadn’t been with the two specific widely-advertised household-name brands, and he said yes. I told him that’s the reason why I’ve tested but never selected their equipment – they’re mostly marketing hype jobs with a lot of problems, limitations and quirks, as he had basically pointed out. Then I asked him if he had ever worked with two other lower-profile and lower volume brands which were my top two standards for benchmark performance levels. He looked at me quizzically and said “no”.

I told him something like this: Ed, you and I are great engineers who come from completely different worlds. But for three years, I walked in your shoes a little as the miracle worker they asked to come in ASAP. You need to understand that as a high-performance consultant, you’re never urgently called in to see how great someone’s processes are working. You’re never called in to optimize a process that’s already working real well, but they are curious if it’s possible to improve the performance by another 80%, or if 2% is all they can hope for. These other guys have great performing equipment that’s capable of high performance advantages if you know how to use it, but you never see any of it in your customers – they all call you because they bought crap that doesn’t work and they need you to perform a 15 minute miracle because they’re losing thousands or millions of dollars an hour. The companies I’ve worked for will never call you because their processes run rings around their competitors, far better than anything they’ve ever done before, and they’re optimized to be very profitable and stable. And I gave him an example from one of my automotive launches for Ford, so stunning that he found it hard to believe my numbers: 20% faster than possible, at a defect rate at least 70% below what the suppliers thought was possible. As a favor, I called a plant engineer and verified my memory.

Well, he took that to heart. And the next day he said, you know, what you’ve accomplished for companies is very impressive. But you need to realize that none of the customers I work with have an engineer trained in these processes – much less a good one. They don’t need to buy fancy equipment that makes it easier for them to screw up more things, because they’ll never get the potential out of it.

Several months later I found that on his website he had changed his tune and was applauding a company whose equipment actually performed well.
Can you see what I’m getting at?

In the article, Mr. Barnes says “What about synthetics? What about fuel economy and extended oil drains – it is assumed that I have a preference. Again, my response is the same: I own a newer model car, so I don’t need to be concerned with high-mileage issues. I am fortunate to live in a temperate climate where I am not forced to start my car when it’s -40°F. Most of my driving is on highway (mostly to and from the airport, given how much traveling I do!), and I do not own a boat or trailer to tow uphill on weekends. Therefore, I’m content to change my oil every 5,000 miles as my owners manual recommends. And lastly, I do not race my car in the passing lane (I guess I’m getting old!).

Based on these factors, I choose a brandname, 5W30 mineral oil, which again meets the API and SAE requirements for my vehicle. [Oops - by the API's own admission, those requirements are minimums only.] That is not to say that you should not use any other oil type, or that synthetics or high-mileage formulations are gimmicks – they’re not. If you live in a colder climate, wish to extend oil drains, have an older car, have a high RPM motorcycle or have particularly severe duty, you may choose to spend the money to upgrade. For me, this doesn’t make sense. By ensuring I maintain my vehicle properly (tire pressure, timing etc.), I can achieve better fuel economy than I can by switching from one oil brand to another.”

Yes, but that distracts from the fact that a 5-10% fuel economy bump when using AMSOIL synthetic oils is an extra boost, in addition to normal proper maintenance. It also ignores the savings of money, and savings of 80% in time and natural resources that you get with 25,000 mile oil changes instead of 5,000 miles. And it ignores the benefits of minimum 70% wear rate reductions which triple the remaining life of an engine.

Look at the last three sentences that conclude his article:
“If you know an application is having lubrication issues, instead of opening the Yellow Pages to look for the next lubricant supplier to invite through the revolving purchasing door, look in the mirror and ask yourself: “Is my lubrication program – areas that I can control such as correct application, cleanliness and storage – up to par?” Is looking for a silver bullet really the answer?”

Here’s a guy (Mark Barnes) that is clearly a seasoned expert but is not focused on high performance cost-savings, because with every customer he’s dealing with the high costs of basic ignorance, or poor practices that create mistakes waiting to happen, or maybe the aftermath of incompetent lube sales guys. I can almost guarantee he’s been in companies whose new maintenance lube guy pumped the wrong grease into 10 different $3,000 motor bearings and they all failed within a day. (That’s why the equipment manufacturers use the grease they do in their bearings: it’s not the best choice, but it IS the one that will sell more motors or rebuild parts when standard greases chemically interact with theirs and pour out of the bearings.) It’s those customers with serious problems that bring him in, because they’re desperate and they heard this guy can help.

And he’s going to buy a new vehicle when his current one has 80,000 or 120,000 miles on it, and he sees no advantage to synthetics because as he admits early in the article, he’s never taken as hard a look at it as his customers assume he has. None of them understands that he doesn’t know his subject matter when he’s talking about synthetic engine oils, or that while his advice works it is FAR from optimal in either cost or performance.

- Brian

A big challenge for both experts and students is data. What data exists, where do you find it, and is it valid? Most lubrication “experts” have never learned to sift through these questions, and data can be hard to come by unless you generate it yourself – which takes lots of time, and requires additional experience and skills. I occasionally see the claim in online forums that Amsoil has no performance data, which is pathetically hilarious because Amsoil has been the King of published data for decades – publishing not only their performance but also the performance of their competition who won’t tell their customers their ASTM test results. Either people can’t find AMSOIL data because they don’t look very hard, or they just listen to others who say there is no data. Mr. Barnes’ expertise is evidently grease, but if he downloaded the Gear Lube White Paper comparison of gear lubes, he might find a clue as to how Amsoil’s greases perform in comparison to conventional petroleum embarrassments.

Another claim is that Amsoil data can’t be trusted because they are the ones who publish it. Several funny problems with that claim: first, they are publishing ASTM test results from certified labs that are used by many oil companies, so if their data isn’t good then neither is any API or SAE data; second, AMSOIL is the only one who publishes test data (even when Exxon-Mobil was asked point-blank for ASTM test data on Mobil 1 vs AMSOIL, they provided nothing but marketing sleight-of-hand); third, although published data claims are legally wide open to false advertising lawsuits, and AMSOIL has huge competitors with deep petro pockets, AMSOIL has never been the subject of even one accusation of false advertising – even though they often publish test results right on their packaging, naming competitive oils. So the decades of legal inaction from AMSOIL’s competition is actual proof that AMSOIL’s test data is accurate.

What Mr. Barnes and Noria seem to miss, steeped in the decades of mediocre petroleum products and synthetic dis-information campaigns, is that the petro companies have a barely-get-by-for-the-specific-application approach, in order to maximize profits. That is reflected in many areas, including the clever API Licensing restrictions which don’t allow high-performance synthetics, and the engine sequence tests. (Fortunately, owners manuals and warranties are based on meeting API/SAE Service Grades, not on being Licensed to display a trademark.)

See, Amsoil’s approach, to engineer the highest possible performance, is the odd duck out. When AMSOIL ran one of their synthetic engine oils through a API Sequence IIIF and had them extend it to triple length, and it flatlined 40% below the failure threshold, the lab boys were stunned – the history of the engine stand had never seen anything like it. To me that makes it rather obvious why Amsoil isn’t going to waste time whining about the API locking them out of Licensing unless they dumb down their product content and performance to the mediocre levels of high petroleum profits.

The ironic thing about Mr. Barnes’ article title is that Amsoil strives to be that Lubrication Silver Bullet — that seems to be their endless mission, and they do it well. To hear Saab experts tell it, AMSOIL is the best Silver Bullet there is to combat fatal sludge formation in sludge-prone engines that cannot stomach API licensed petroleum products, which matches his definition of a Silver Bullet as “a magical weapon, especially one that instantly solves a long-standing problem”.

So from one lubrication expert to another, I’d say that yes, there is a Lubrication Silver Bullet that can stop wear in its’ tracks, lower operating temperatures, lower maintenance costs, use less energy to operate, not allow sludge and varnish buildup, maintain turbochargers in like-new condition, and double or triple equipment life with maximum-performance synthetic lubrication and nanofiber filtration technology. AMSOIL does seem a lot like a Silver Bullet. But in the world of lubrication engineering, you find many who call AMSOIL the Gold Standard.

Several manufacturers of aftermarket air intake filters make great-sounding claims about how well their engine air intake filters remove the fine, sandy grit that causes engine wear.  It’s good they’re at least making some claims, because most of the worst performers just ignore the issue of wear particles that pass through their filters.  (That’s a consumer hint – don’t buy filters that don’t even attempt to tell you how well they perform.) But how great do those filters really perform in removing dust wear particles? 

One company boasts an ISO 5011 test stand with certified performance that’s “testing to the highest standards”.  Sounds great.  Another uses filter media designed with 5 layers of progressive filtering that’s 99.4% efficient, and “so revolutionary that we applied for and received a patent.”  These filters are probably better than the OEM and OEM-style paper filters.  But what’s the best performance?  As an automotive engineer, I’m adamant in recommending nanofiber filtration technology that’s 98.7% efficient at 2 microns, and 100% efficient at 3 microns.  But 99.4% looks like a better number than 98.7%, right?  So why do I recommend something that appears to be worse performance, and how do I know that nanofiber technology is really better?  Stick with me a couple of minutes to sweep away the fogs of consumer deception, and I’ll explain.

There are four things that count in air filtration:  flow volume, holding capacity, and filtration particle size at a specific efficiency.

1. Flow Volume.  Some companies focus exclusively on flow volume. 
   Three things to beware:
   - Flow volume at what pressure drop? 
   - What’s your engine’s maximum airflow?  Any flow beyond what your engine can use is useless to you.  In racing or pulling applications with modified vehicles, a high pressure drop (because of high air flow volume) can often collapse the filter.  The engine-damaging results are expensive. 
   - Very low pressure drop at very high flow usually means that at least 50% of meaningful wear particles are passing right through into your engine.
2. Holding capacity.  How much particulate will the filter hold before the pressure drop across the filter is measureably reducing your fuel economy or power?  In the case of oiled-cotton-gauze filters, how much particulate will the filter hold before it’s passing nearly all the wear particles into your engine?  (The classic answer is “not much”.)
3. Filtration Particle Size.  The accepted engineering rule of thumb is that damaging wear particles are those with a size of 5 to 25 microns.  Filtering smaller ones is icing on the cake.  Claiming filter performance efficiency on particles larger than 20 microns is a warning sign that the filter performance is very poor.
4. Filtration Efficiency.  This is listed as a percentage, which refers to what percent of a certain size of particles are captured by the filter.  Beware: in order for either the particle-size or efficiency to have ANY meaning at all, you MUST know both numbers.  Any company who quotes one without the other is simply trying to deceive you, and generally implies that their real performance in removing wear particles is average to poor.

  So that’s the bottom line.  What matters is that AMSOIL’s Ea line of nanofiber air filters is 98.7% efficient at 2 microns.  According to an SAE research paper, that level of filtration reduces particle-based engine wear to levels so low that it is difficult to detect any wear.

What about certified ISO testing?  That’s all legitimately potentially impressive, but “the devil’s in the details”.  What’s the particle size at what efficiency percentage?  They don’t tell you, so you have to figure it out.  That’s pretty tough if you aren’t a trained engineer… and not very convenient for consumers!  For example, an “SAE  Coarse Dust Test” uses A4, and if you look at a typical sample of certified test dust (sent to me by a filter company that advertises their ISO testing), you find that more than 85% of the test dust is larger than 10 microns, less than 35% is smaller than 20 microns in size, and particles that are 5 microns or smaller are less than 10% of the dust. So, “coarse dust” does a poor job in both representing typical driving exposure, AND in representing the 5 to 25 micron wear-particle range that is so critical to your engine.

So what does that mean?  A couple of very important things. 
First, “coarse” test dust is exactly that, and it’s not going to tell you much other than that you have a filter.  It’s a good test of how well your filter will work in a baja race if you’re eating a lot of dust kicked up in front of you.  But is that what you’re doing?  If they really wanted to test and demonstrate meaningful performance, they would use “fine” test dust. 
Secondly, it means that when they do comparison “side by side” “apples to apples” testing against a much better filter, like a nanofiber media, their filter performance can look very good – even identical.  Because as the coarse dust builds up on their coarse filter, the classic “dust cake” forms, enabling the filter to take out much smaller particles than it otherwise could. If they tested it with fine dust, the results would be very different.

AMSOIL doesn’t play games.  Ea filters are tested with fine dust by the most respected certified filtration test lab in the nation, and they publish the particle size and efficiency together with flow and capacity data.  They tell us everything, nothing hidden.  No-one else does that.  15 times the dust holding capacity of oiled gauze filters, at an identical (very low) 0.5 inches of pressure drop.  And just try to beat 98.7% at 2 microns.  Ain’t gonna happen.

By the way, nanofiber filters don’t use oil, are quickly re-cleanable and re-useable, and are also cheaper to use than any other filter solution.  Yeh.  Use nanofiber and win on time, win on cost, win on performance.  Who can beat that?

The U.S. Army must agree with me, because nanofiber filtration technology is what the M1A1 Abrams battle tank has been using for more than a decade. 

OEM’s agree that to maximize your differential life you need to do your first fluid change at 5,000 miles, and lubrication and drivetrain engineers will add that a high-performance synthetic is the best and longest-lasting choice.  Maybe you’ve heard that, but what synthetic should you choose?  Remarkably, there are downright embarrassing differences in the tested performance of gear lubes on the market.   In fact, using the wrong one in a towing application will probably take your differential into early failure.   You can download a free research study detailing the performance testing of 14 name-brand gear lubes.  Think it doesn’t matter much?  On the contrary, we found it very disturbing that over half of the name-brand gear lubes failed one or more of the standard performance tests.

That study is also excellent because at the beginning, as background, it outlines the results of operating-temperature studies done on differentials in towing applications.  The information from those studies is eye-opening.  So enjoy.  And remember, your entire vehicle and towing load rests on TWO GEAR TEETH in your differential: your gear lube choice is critical !

It appears that those still promoting global warming aren’t keeping up with the data. Two of the best recent examples cover the logic, the issues, and the scientific mechanisms that are driving the most up-to-date scientific opinions:

A recent article in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society is detailed here:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html

This one – “Global Warming not Affected by Man” covers more detail:

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Global_Warming/2007/09/25/35562.html

“The late New Zealand professor Augie Auer explained that three-quarters of the planet is ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is governed by water vapour.

“Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.”

“So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.115 percent … that’s like .12 cents in $100. It’s minuscule … it’s nothing. “”

I like to point out a couple of common sense things that seem to escape many people. First, that naturally-caused forest fires generate huge amounts of oxide emissions, and mankind already does a great deal to prevent and extinquish such fires – that alone does a lot to reduce our “carbon footprint”. And second, mankind’s worldwide activities can’t hold a candle to the output from a volcanic eruption.

Finally, the scientific research is getting to the point where it can effectively explain common sense. So back to diesels: Mr. EPA, how about rolling back the greenhouse gas emissions requirements set in place for 2007 vehicles, and unleashing modern diesels to get a 10% fuel economy improvement? Isn’t saving 10% in fuel economy more environmentally responsible than reducing gas emissions that have no measurable environmental impact?

When Copernicus presented scientific evidence that defied the earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe “fact”, the popular cultural paradigm was stronger than the real scientific data:  everyone had been taught the “scientific facts” in school and in the media, so they already “knew” that Copernicus was wrong.  So because he dared to present the truth, he was severely mistreated. 

In his classic and famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn revealed how the mental paradigm of researchers and scientists is very powerful in determining experimental results, dramatically influencing the outcome of “objective” research.  In fact, the further the data is from what they ”expect” to see, the more likely that they will completely throw out disagreeing portions of the data as “flyers”, or “errors”.   Once they throw out that data and publish the remains, their readers assume that the data is complete and conclusive - but it’s not. This is part of what has created and sustained the present global-warming paradigm.

But in the case of the UN’s ”final” original IPCC signed report, another element was introduced into the published version.  Those with control over the publishing of the final report have been accused of deliberately altering the approved content… for political reasons.  A number of the original scientific scientists and reviewers claim that a handful of elite IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) members unethically altered the report into its’ “final” version, after the original final version had been signed, apparently in order to falsely represent as scientific fact that global warming is a real and severe problem that is largely caused by mankind.  When the “signed” IPCC report was presented as if the signers agreed to the published version, it created a strong international paradigm that has been functioning internationally to help ignore, renounce, discredit, villify, muzzle or minimize the voices of many of the world’s top scientists who are trying to present the actual data…  including much fuller scientific evidence which didn’t exist 10 years ago.   This paradigm is so strong that even reasonable, fairly logical people are dismissing the credibility of any scientist (or individual) that doesn’t agree with the global-warming conclusions, without fair or reasonable consideration of their credentials, their evidence, or their logic. 

In a recent response to my earlier posting, Inel stated that the IPCC “has the greatest credibility worldwide”.  But that credibility is based on a false consensus created with incomplete and censored scientific data, and it’s being used as a dramatic excuse to manipulate and control the political arena, and citizens, worldwide.  As Dr. Ball states below, “consensus is not a scientific fact”.   Nor does consensus create facts which are “unequivocal”.  

Unfortunately, even if they are permitted/priviledged to read it, most people are not equipped to measure the validity of Dr. Ball’s observations and perspective.  But in my primary field of expertise – manufacturing welding engineering – I have to endlessly battle the giants of wrong “facts” that “everyone knows” about welding processes.  I’ve encountered widely recognized national and international welding technology companies and consultants who were firmly wrong, and their opinions would have cost my employer hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, if I hadn’t persisted in excellence to produce the best, most profitable results.  In the end, those results have always proven that I’m right… but the paradigm battles can be intense. 

My point here is that I can clearly see Dr. Ball’s position and character in what he writes about his lifelong area of expertise: I recognize the absolute certainty that grows out of a solid blend of seasoned expertise, logic, professionalism, and persistance in the face of great opposition.  Whether he wins or loses isn’t the point – he’s fighting for the truth, because it’s in the best interests of the vast majority, and because he feels a deep professional responsibility to advance factual knowledge in his area of expertise.
Here’s the link, followed by his opening paragraph:

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why… ”

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

Brian Dobben is a Mechanical and Welding Engineer with a proven track record of accurate detailed analysis, and bucking international experts to produce 80% improvements in the “best” benchmark welding performance standards.

An article released this week by the U.S. Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works highlights the history and current positions of several of the world’s most noted environmental scientists.  Some of the Scientists cited include geophysicist Claude Allegre, geologist Bruno Wiskel, astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, mathemetician engineer David Evans, climate researcher Tad Murty, botanist David Bellamy, climate scientist Chris de Freitas, physicist Zbigniew Jaworowski, and many more. 

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, taught students that CO2 was the primary driver of climate change.  No longer.  As the Senate article details, Patterson says his conversion on the issue “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics.  “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007.   In the majority?  What about the many claims that the IPCC’s report, and the scientific evidence is unequivocal?  Maybe they forgot to tell the Geological Society of America.

Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.” 

Dr. Chris de Freitas wrote this last August 17th:  “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Yet on the other hand, Greenpeace is building a replica of Noah’s Ark, and their message sounds so familiar: “Climate change is real, it’s happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times,” said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. “Those leaders have a mandate from the people … to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now.”

Who do you suppose has more credibility?  Who should get more press coverage?  Greenpeace?  Or scientists who dedicated themselves to global warming, yet have now reversed their position based on scientific data which shows almost no climate link to manmade factors, but a strong link to solar activity and absorbed solar energy?

However, recently I’ve found scientists who are speaking out on this subject.  And wouldn’t you guess?  It’s all about the money, and those many people and nations who would like to destroy our Republic (no, the United States is not a democracy).  Other countries want to strangle us (and Western Civilization) with stringent and costly regulations that they have no intention of following themselves, because to them it’s nothing more than economic warfare.

Well over 10 Billion dollars has been spent on climate studies in the last 5 years.  Know what the facts say?  Global warming is mostly about FRAUD.  Costly, and potentially dangerous fraud.   http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm

Also check out this link:  http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1473.htm

So it turns out that I’m exactly right about the new ridiculously strict EPA regulations on diesel emissions that take effect for 2007 diesels and diesel fuels:  there is no more environmental protection to be gained from these tailpipe edicts than from regulating the content of cow manure emissions.   Think about the implications of that fact.

——

Feb 22nd Update:  Inel offered some interesting observations and perspectives.  And the eloquent and persuasive writing has prompted me to investigate further and respond.   First, I originally made the overly broad statement that “global warming is fraud”.  So I changed it to say that ”global warming is mostly about fraud”, but perhaps I should have said this: ”leading the public to believe that there is a preponderance of scientific data that can support a significant increase in global temperatures over the last 1,000+ years, and that mankind’s activities have had more than a whimper of an effect on global temperatures… is fraud.”

The IPCC is a UN-organized committee.  And given the UN track record in recent decades, with several major criminal scandals documented AND unpunished such as child-sex-for-food, and the fact that genocidal regimes are tolerated and presumed to have weighty opinions and judgements about human rights violations… well, since the U.N. problems are so pervasive and severe, a logical person is going to be cautious in examining or accepting any conclusion of worldwide importance that has even the approving stamp of the U.N., much less an effort that is organized and controlled by the U.N.  

This is the best and wisest kind of skepticism.  In particular, is there any evidence that the scientific opinions or data are being censored, altered, or otherwise manipulated?  As a matter of fact, there are substantial and credible allegations of fraudulent manipulation directed against those controlling the final published version of the IPCC reports, and this is what has prompted quite a large scientific backlash: Dr Fred Singer interview

It appears to me that many of the original signers of the pre-publication IPCC report are very upset, judging from the huge number of people who have signed the (unmanipulated) petition.  While many may have changed their mind according to some survey, the question needs to be asked “why”?  Singer points out that it is completely unethical to take the “final” reviewed and signed version of the document, then substantially censor the contents and even alter data, and then publish it as if that was what the signing scientists had agreed to.  After all, don’t those alterations place huge suspicion on whether the contents actually reflect the research conclusions of all those lead authors, contributing authors, and reviewers?

While there is indeed a lot of research data, it seems that it’s being manipulated to support/force the conclusions desired by a few whose motives are hidden and questionable, at best.  Certainly if the beginning and ending dates are preselected for the purpose, then the data DOES show that “warming of the climate system is uneqivocal”.  But if the date span is opened up, as the Harvard study does, then global warming is far from unequivocal.  And if the date span for the data is opened, in fact multiplied, doesn’t that suggest that the results will be more authoritative?  And isn’t that yet another legitimate and appropriate basis for skepticism of the IPCC report conclusions?  If the data itself is truly “unequivocal”, then why is the data limited to such a small and carefully selected date range?  And why must the IPCC report be unethically censored before publishing?  The logical answer is that if you want a report that’s equivocal (uncertain, open to question, open to multiple interpretations) to appear unequivocal, you merely alter it to say what you want. 

Which brings me to a disappointing statement: “Anything written by named individuals who are well-known global warming skeptics, such as Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, I consider not authoritative on climate change. Sceptics have succeeded in delaying positive action to combat climate change long enough.”

So Inel feels that anyone skeptical of global warming is “not authoritative on climate change”.  How can it be that Singer and Seitz, who have long and distinguished careers with a lack of unprofessional, unethical, manipulative chapters in their careers, are suspect – but the gross bias and criminal reputation of the U.N. is of no consequence?  Some of the observations I have made about older and greatly respected people is that they have an intense desire to leave behind a quality contribution to society and individual lives, and they generally have a stronger sense of responsibility when it comes to ethical behavior.  They often feel an urgent professional responsibility to not only avoid deception, but to speak out against it.  Their internal moral compass drives a firm conviction that it is professionally and morally wrong to rationalize deception, whether of the public or private individuals, because it’s essentially an abuse of power…  abusing those who expect and trust professional integrity.  

So the mind appears closed, while this debate is far from it.  This close-our-minds-and-move-forward-with-”positive-action” attitude is exactly the result that those who control the IPCC final-report content appear to have targeted, in order to short-circuit scientific and public debate and produce a broad concensus that they can harness for their own political and economic purposes. 

 About 10 years ago, I worked for one of the world’s leading manufacturers of units for refrigeration and HVAC… during the time when the original IPCC report was being put together.  As a leader in refrigerant technologies, they had been deep into research for the best alternatives to Freon.  I heard a number of discussions about how much money they – and other companies in the industry were going to make from the changeovers to new refrigerants – billions of dollars.  And I heard how well poised they were to take full advantage of these changes.  But I noticed that I never, ever heard any discussion of the environmental validity of the changes, or that changes were being made out of concern for the environment.  It seemed to me that the company felt the concerns were bogus but had no intentions of voicing that opinion.

It has yet to be scientifically demonstrated that “positive action” to reduce global warming will be of any more benefit to the environment than – as I stated above – regulating cow manure emissions.

Why would I make such a “plain daft” statement?  Regarding Kyoto, Singer points this out: “even the UN group has calculated that it will reduce the temperature during the next century by 0.05 degrees. No one can even measure that! It is admittedly completely ineffective, so now they’re saying that it’s an important first step.”

Another of Inel’s comments was also insightful: “(IPCC) has the greatest credibility worldwide, and the recent Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was approved by representatives of world governments — including the United States, China and India — line-by-line. No other organisation in any branch of science goes through a similarly rigourous process before releasing an assessment report, as far as I can tell.”

This would be all well and good if there wasn’t “treachery afoot” as a writer once said.  The key to SPM is that “policy-makers” aren’t scientists who’ve studied the data, and they will believe the final report.  Many good-hearted people don’t understand that when there is this much money involved (many billions), and this much economic warfare incentive, blended with politicians, there automatically IS a “global climate industry”.  And it’s probably shot full of deceptions.

So we who would presume to be authorities and speak publically on a subject need to not only know what we’re talking about, but also know that what we’re saying is really true.  Especially when the actions or solutions being advocated can literally bankrupt nations and shift global power bases.  Was the first IPCC report intended to make clear statements that global warming was real, and serious, and caused by mankind – regardless of the actual data and the unaltered conclusions of the researchers?  Were its’ conclusions predetermined in order to pave the way for the Kyoto protocol’s radical economic penalties on Western Civilization, and to fund billions of dollars in research to invent billions more that Western countries needed to spend on solutions to an invented problem?

Inel seems to advocate that we don’t need to be able to validate what the U.N.’s group is saying, we just need to trust them.  Based on the information known about the 1st report’s alterations, that advice doesn’t seem reasonable or responsible.

Which goes back to a fundamental principle of American self-government: as citizens we better be careful who we believe, and it is the responsibility of every reasoned and logical citizen to hold their elected officials accountable to make decisions based on valid and unmanipulated facts and data.  Unfortunately, today’s citizens are generally too lazy, too uninformed, too illiterate, too trusting, and too naive, being raised in a fast-food world and believing that 30 second or 30-minute commercials or “investigative reports” are factual because they are on TV and appear to be factual.   Censorship is a large and growing problem which most Americans still seem to be unaware of.  Congress is not only legalizing censorship, but is making it illegal for non-media organizations to inform citizens of political and social facts.  These problems have 98%+ roots in the Left, not in the Right (to put it in those common terms). 

Another problem is that the traditional media outlets have long ago abandoned their professional responsibility to report both sides of a story, and instead have rationalized that their role is to shape public opinion to drive the nation in the direction it ought to go.  The idea is that people are too ignorant to govern themselves (American history would be a bad poster child for that theory), so the elite are justified in deceiving them as they see fit.  That’s not a free society – that’s manipulation and propaganda. 

Inel’s quote from Solomon was quite good.  I think the key point is that it takes great wisdom to uncover who is lying, and who is trustworthy.   A cursory examination isn’t going to cut it.  For example, Inel confuses the validity of what the IPCC report states, with the validity of what the “climate experts” cited in the report WERE ACTUALLY SAYING IN THE VERSION OF THE REPORT THEY APPROVED, before the report was unethically altered.  Seems like a classic case of using (deceiving) respected people in scheme that’s carefully devised to abuse their credibility, in order to achieve a result that the respected people would never have privately supported or publically agreed with.

Conclusion: it appears that Global Warming may (or may not) be a very slight fact.  And rather than blindly hang a $5,000 per year penalty around the neck of every citizen because the IPCC gods have spoken, we have a responsibility to fully support real debate in the marketplace, rather than censor the debate and “move on” to extremely expensive and nationally crippling actions which have a carefully crafted emotional value, but lack scientific evidence of any decisive impact. 

And so far it appears that perhaps half the scientists think that mankind’s total potential impact on global warming is, at worst, so minor that it is inconsequential “noise” in the data.  Which would mean that the Global Warming “facts”, as they are presented in the popular (censored) media, are fraudulent.  So the doomsayers with the global climate models of coastlines disappearing must be prophets, not scientists, because as Inel pointed out, “Scientists and engineers do not prophesy. (You should know that if you have studied engineering at University. Elementary school kids know that scientists and engineers are different from prophets.)”

The lessons that I hope we can learn from this?

1. Investigate before you believe.  The bigger the issue, and the more multinational companies, governments, and nations that are involved, the deeper you have to dig to discover the truth. 
2. If we really want to have a positive impact on the environment as everyday citizens, it’s best to look to the simpler, more proven, more effective opportunities.  For example, improving fuel economy DOES conserve a non-renewable natural resource.  THAT is unequivocal.  Using the best synthetic lubricants with extended drain intervals not only improves fuel economy an average of about 8%, but reduces the use and dumping of engine oil by an estimated 87% or more.  THAT is unequivocal.  (Oh, and the big oil drilling companies don’t much like those facts, which is why they have worked so hard to cloud the issues and redefine the word “synthetic”.)
3. The EPA has cut vehicle pollutant emissions by over 90% in the last several decades.  But now it seems to be abandoning fiscal public responsibilities, and it’s charter mission, in order to jump on the global warming political (not scientific) bandwagon.  Think not?  Why else is the EPA forcing 10% worse fuel economy in order to get absurdly low NOx emission levels when they could simply outlaw the signs in AutoZone and Jiffylube that push 3,000 mile oil changes, or mandate that they say 7,000 miles, or state that 25,000 mile synthetic oils are available?  Those would be  quick, low-cost changes that would produce a far larger environmental benefit.  And they’ve had a lot longer than 10 years to do it…

  According to GM, even today’s basic petroleum oils are good for an average of more than 8,500 miles per oil change. 

(Published Feb 5th, greatly revised Feb 22nd.)

Another interesting blogger perspective: ‘He Betrayed Us! He Played on our Fears!’ — Al Gore — A Convenient Crisis — But Don’t Look at His Carbon Footprint « The end of elite media empires and rise of citizen journalism

As an automotive engineer, I can assure you that not all Jiffy Lubes are this bad.  But I can also assure you that there are other vehicle service centers who are just as bad or worse than what you saw in that news segment.  Some places will break your vehicle in order to charge you for a repair.  Other places will fix a $5 problem, then charge you $500 for some part and repair that you didn’t need and they didn’t do.  What does this mean to you as a customer?  How can you protect yourself?   I have some recommendations for you on how to handle your vehicle maintenance.  I can recommend them strongly because they’re exactly what I do myself on my own vehicles:

1. Strongly consider changing your own engine oil & oil filter.  It’s not hard, you’ll know it’s done right, you won’t get the cheapest possible oil out of their bulk tank, and you won’t be putting your vehicle in “harms way” several times a year with someone you really don’t know.  Further, changing your own oil & filter is much easier if you use modern PAO synthetic engine oil and nanofiber filter technology, instead of the 30-year-old petroleum and paper technologies that the oil companies, auto service centers, quick lubes, and vehicle OEM’s want you to use.   How easy?  One year, 25,000 mile oil changes.  Typical benefits to the technologies?  It’s cheaper per year, you’ll probably gain 5-10% in fuel economy (saving cash AND natural resources – a valuable combination), you reduce engine oil use an estimated 87% (saving natural resources) and you reduce your vehicle’s wear rate by 70% or more.  Details on converting your vehicle.
   Note: if you don’t want to change your oil, you can buy the high-tech oil and filters and take them in to most shops/dealerships and have them changed for a $5 to $15 charge.  If you take in your own oil and filters, it sends a clear message to the service shop that you know what you’re doing and take your maintenance seriously.
2. Consider adding an oil bypass filter.     The nation’s best and most profitable commercial fleet and equipment maintenance managers use this secret, combined with oil analysis.  With premium filter construction and nanofiber media, today’s bypass filters will eliminate over 90% of the normal engine wear that occurs from abrasive particles, tripling vehicle mileage life.  Meanwhile, by using the best PAO-design engine oils, you eliminate the need to change your motor oil.  So your maintenance gets REALLY EASY.  How easy?  Just change your full-flow filter annually or every 25,000 miles, and your bypass filter every 2  yrs or 60,000 miles.  DIY types will find that the installation of the “bypass” (or partial-flow) filter is simple, or you can have a good auto mechanic do the installation.  Depending on experience and vehicle, expect the installation to take 2 to 3 hours.  4 hours if you’re slow, easily distracted, very detailed, not in a hurry, and want to take pictures of the installation.  Note: if you do this, you will also want to send an oil sample in to a testing lab at least annually to verify the condition of your engine and oil for maintenance and vehicle warranty purposes – costing about $20-25 per sample test.   
3. Take your vehicle maintenance seriously: take it only to somewhere that you know does good work.  You wouldn’t drop your child off at the cheapest care center that had an opening, without doing some leg work.  Doesn’t your mechanical “baby” deserve some consideration, too?  Check out the shop and the mechanic.  How long have they been in business?   Is the mechanic certified, and how long has he been in the area?  Ask someone who knows reputations in the area for their recommendation.  I have three shops in my area that I will recommend to people, because I am confident that they have the expertise and reputation that means they will strive to do the job and do it right.
4. Remember the hint in the video about filters: by marking the filter with a permanent marker yourself, you can easily verify that they did change that air/oil/fuel filter – rather than doing nothing or just wiping it clean to look like it was changed.
5. If you get in a “tight spot” and need work done by a place that you don’t know, there are some secrets that will help you.   The two keys are to ask questions and to handle the parts.  Here are some ideas:  ask to see what the new parts or filters look like that they will be installing, write down the part numbers from the boxes and physically HANDLE and examine the parts.  If the parts are a little dirty or greasy, even better – and you can wash your hands in their restroom or wash-up sink.  (They know that most customers don’t know much about vehicle maintenance and that those who do, often don’t pay attention.  So if you handle the parts and ask questions, it sends a message that you have done some of your own maintenance work, may much know more about your vehicle maintenance than what they suspect, and that you are very concerned that it is done right.  This is exactly what you want them to think – that they are at risk for being found out if they try to cheat you.)
   If they are vehicle parts (not just a filter), point to one or two key features and ask them which connection that is, or what type of connector, or where does that connector go to, or how does the part work?  You could even say something like ”I’ve seen these before, but I’m curious, how does this actually work?” or “what does this actually do?”  Other good questions: “this seems like it’s in pretty good (or really bad) shape – how long are these supposed to last?  Do you see this very often?  What’s your opinion of that design compared to the Ford/Chrysler approach? (…yeh, that’s what I’ve heard)”  Tell them you want to see the part they take off your vehicle, and want them to physically show you where it’s located & how it’s mounted.   (They will usually accomodate your request, though they may have a policy against allowing customers in the service area.  If they decline, you MIGHT want to say that you understand the whole insurance bit, but you’re uneasy about using a repair shop that won’t let you see what they’re doing to their vehicle.)  

I don’t like to lie, but if you’re concerned about the shop or don’t know them, you might share that your brother/uncle/friend/father/boyfriend is a certified master mechanic in another town/state who used to train mechanics in the military and whenever he can’t do the work for you and doesn’t know the mechanic, he always makes you show them exactly what work was done so that they can inspect it… he likes to protect you & his friends, but you also suspect that he likes finding and reporting fraudulent mechanic work because it gives him more business…  you get the idea. 

Following these ideas will help you maximize your vehicle life, minimize your maintenance costs, and protect yourself even when you have no idea if the service shop is reputable or what they’re really doing to your vehicle.