Mostly Mechanical

Auto & Truck Oils, Lubes & Filters – Separating Technology from Hype

Global Warming – Fact or Fraud?

Global warming concerns: these days, they drive many decisions that are made daily by private citizens and public policy makers.  But as an engineer, I’ve long been suspicious about the idea of NOx (Nitrous Oxide) tailpipe emissions being anything more warming than the Nitrogen and Oxygen already in the atmousphere.  As a matter of fact, I’ve been very suspicious about the validity of any of it…  but I’m not a climate scientist.  

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   First, I originally made the overly broad statement that “global warming is fraud”.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

Advertisements

January 5, 2007 - Posted by | Diesels, Environment, Environmental Issues, Fraud Alert

6 Comments »

  1. Global warming is a fact. If you want authoritative references instead of taking my word for it, let me know.

    Much of the rest of your post is just plain daft (though some would go so far as to describe its claims as fraudulent, i.e. deceitful).

    Comment by inel | February 5, 2007 | Reply

  2. Inel –
    I realize the party line that the media insists we all follow, but the question is – how authoritative is it really? In order to determine a well-rounded answer to that, you must hear out both sides. I think many people have been firmly brainwashed that global warming is “a fact”. But what about the other perspective? Solomon once said that everyone seems right until another comes forward to question them.

    I suggest you follow the two links that are listed.
    For example, here’s a quote from the second link. How authoritative does this strike you?
    “…yet another scholarly study that debunks the notion our current climate is unusually hot, and getting hotter due to manmade greenhouse emissions. The latest study, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (www.cfa.harvard.edu), carries the vernacular title 20th-Century Climate Not So Hot. Co-authored by Smithsonian astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and David Legates of the Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware, it notes: “20th Century temperatures were generally cooler than during the medieval warmth.”

    Or how about one of the world’s leading scientists (the first link) stating this right off the bat: “the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real”.

    I’ve long been suspicious about global warming because as an engineer, some of the underlying “facts” just don’t make good scientific sense. For example, it’s been calculated that one average volcanic eruption produces XX,XXX times (insert huge number) the volume of pollution that all of mankind has produced since civilization began. Forrest fires make a point, too, because we put them out instead of letting them burn, offsetting the impact of things we purposely burn. Maybe that’s my problem – I expect scientific facts to sensibly support theories. Maybe I’m letting common sense get in the way…

    Comment by autoengineer | February 7, 2007 | Reply

  3. Hi autoengineer,

    Thanks for your reply. I am an engineer too.

    Q. Do you know what “unequivocal” means?
    A. There is no doubt.

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.

    That’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated on Friday after an extensive and thorough analysis of climate change research over the past six years.

    They also stated the cause of global warming:

    Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    There are 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries, who have worked for 6 years to produce 4 volumes (of which the recent report released in Paris is the first) which will be combined into a single IPCC report “Climate Change 2007” later this year.

    These climate experts convened by the UN state that global warming is unequivocal, and human activity—especially fossil fuel combustion which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—is very likely the main driver. All our governments have approved this document. That is as authoritative as you can get.

    Yet, curiously, you still ask:

    how authoritative is it really?

    More commentary on that is in my recent post. You are welcome to comment here, but please remember that my blog is read by schoolchildren on both sides of the Atlantic 🙂

    Your definition of common sense is not the same as mine 😉 Perhaps you will recognise the wisdom in this story, though:

    Solomon famously gave two women a choice over the destiny of the child they both claimed. When he threatened to kill the baby, the women’s responses revealed which was the true mother. The true mother would save the baby’s life at all costs—even by giving her own baby to the other woman. The false woman had her lies exposed when she told Solomon to go ahead and divide the child. The false woman didn’t care about the child: she was jealous of the true mother.

    There is no party line.

    The media does not insist we follow anything.

    I think my own thoughts.

    Brainwashing of the general public in America (not in Europe or Japan, thankfully) is another issue. Americans have been provided a steady diet of doubt over the past decade as far as global warming is concerned. That doubt prevented action to combat climate change early on. As a result, the actions we need to take personally, locally and globally now are more extreme than they would have been if global warming sceptics had not sown doubt, manufactured debate, and derailed talks on this subject for at least ten years.

    Actually, I did look at sitewave.net yesterday and have seen the petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) before, but I did not click on the links above directly from within your post, so I admit you could not see that I had visited those links if you checked your WordPress Clicks in your Blog Stats. Sorry for inadvertently misleading you there.

    Frederick Seitz is a well-known global warming skeptic, who wrote the cover letter to people to encourage them to sign a petition against the Kyoto Protocol that was organised by the OISM. Furthermore, Seitz has links with another global warming skeptic: Fred Singer. Seitz is 95 years old. Singer is 82 years old. I respect elderly people, especially when they have made a positive contribution to people’s lives and life on Earth.

    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.

    In summary, for authoritative information on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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 SPM is the first of several IPCC reports to be released this year on various aspects of climate change including: the physical science basis; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and mitigation of climate change.

    Beyond IPCC assessments, I look to NOAA, NERC, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Met Office Hadley Centre, and The Royal Society for authoritative scientific information on climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists has recently completed an investigation into political pressure on climate scientists which may be worth reading if you are interested in the so-called brainwashing aspects of this controversy.

    As far as your quote is concerned:

    the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real

    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.)

    I did not know there was a “climate modelling industry”. Interesting.

    “not scientifically real” is a pretty vapid phrase. Here’s a better one, from the President of the Royal Society who made a three paragraph statement (in response to the release of the IPCC SPM last Friday in Paris) concluding with:

    “We need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Those who would claim otherwise can no longer use science as a basis for their argument.

    Comment by inel | February 7, 2007 | Reply

  4. […] Hi autoengineer, I am electroengineer 😉 February 7, 2007 at 4:59 pm | In Environment, 2007, Climate change, Global warming, Engineering, Environmental Issues, IPCC, Answer, Climate challenge, Science Education, Irresponsible, Royal Society, NERC, Climate preparedness, Climate Reports, Unequivocal | Hi autoengineer, […]

    Pingback by Hi autoengineer, I am electroengineer ;-) « inel | February 7, 2007 | Reply

  5. Hi,
    global warming is a real problem. We have to fight with it.

    Comment by Peter | November 7, 2008 | Reply

    • Global warming is a totally non-existent FRAUD, designed to steal taxpayer money, create more government controls and power, and create global “monopoly money” in the form of “credits” that can be gifted and swapped for real money in exchange for considerations such as votes, PR opportunities, government posts, and executive bonuses. To bring everyone up to speed on the last several years of media covered events, here’s a rundown of the REAL FACTS:
      1) Global warming & cooling are cyclical events driven primarily by the solar flare cycles of the sun. The manmade impact on global temperatures is so small that it can scarcely be calculated, but is well under 1% of total temperature variations.
      2) The Medieval global warming period was well established historically, and was warmer than the recent warming period that ended about 10 years ago, but was erased on Wikipedia through the systematic altering/deletion of over 5,000 scientific entries.
      3) The IPCC was never dedicated to science, but to scientific politics fronted by scientists with corrupt agendas.
      4) The key IPCC members systematically devised and participated in weld-developed strategies to essentially defraud the global population and Western Civilized countries of money through many sneaky mechanisms such as “carbon credits”.
      5) U.S. government climate agencies created and hid fraud in the form of altered temperature readings, eliminating the temperature data from over 70% of the weather equipment stations, adding new weather data stations which were fraudulently located to provide artificially high temperatures from sources such as commercial engine exhaust and blacktop pavement and hot rooftops.
      6) All key scientists and analysts who dared question the falsified data or incorrect conclusions were systematically villified and/or illegally punished through many forms of control and abuse of power.

      And all of that is really just the tip of the iceberg.

      Comment by autoengineer | March 2, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: