Mostly Mechanical

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

Global Warming is Officially Over

It’s been a long time coming. First there was Climategate, where e-mails revealed European authorities disinformation strategies which included a systematic takeover of the climate content on Wikipedia, to erase inconvenient scientific information and silence the dissenting opinions of hundreds of leading scientists. Then there was the NOAA whistleblower who revealed the systematic fraud strategies that were creating a fake data appearance of global warming. For those who forget, this included replacement of many high-altitude weather stations with low altitude weather stations that were inherently warmer, and even some new temperature stations on blacktop roofs and behind airport jet-engine exhaust zones. Of course that wasn’t enough by itself because you have to deal with the ocean temperatures… so they were just changing the data in the reporting.

Now, with an official 18 years of global cooling under our belts (using real temperature data), we have a long string of remarkable proofs that everything is getting cooler – just like the solar energy cycle predicted. Along with tens of thousands of other engineers, scientists and educators, I’ve been on the intelligent and correct side of this Global-Warming fraud: publicly since 2007.

Here are more complete details on the end of the climate scare fraud.  Please share links to the article, because many people need to learn the facts and unlearn the deceptions.  The ignorant and the hidden-agenda liars will still disagree with the facts, but their credibility is zero.

Meanwhile, however, we have to contend with the continued agendas that drove the Obummer EPA to declare that Carbon Dioxide was a pollutant. That was the key driver to force higher electrical costs, higher new vehicle costs with unrealistic and illegally forced MPG targets, “green business” scams, and wider use of the carbon-credits theft and money-transfer scheme – not to mention setting up the CARB shysters to dictate their fraud nationwide.  As energy costs “necessarily skyrocket” per emperor O’s stated plan, and new vehicle designs move toward tiny aerogel capsules with unobtanium components and an average $60k USD pricetag, and the plan unfolds to allow ebola to decimate the nation and military so the emperor’s minions can seize more power, it becomes ever more clear that we must regain control of our corrupt government wannabe-marxist-masters.  Remember to vote with intelligence: real environmental responsibility is great, but anyone who publicly supports GW-fraud-based agendas like those isn’t fit for any responsibility in any office in the free world.


October 13, 2014 Posted by | Environment, Environmental Issues, Fraud Alert, Global Warming, Uncategorized | | 1 Comment

Authoritative Global-Warming Conclusions: Wake up EPA !

It appears that scientists are continuing to learn a lot more about what actually causes climactic variations. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where perhaps a majority of scientists are outright calling Global Warming and Greenhouse gases a “scam”. Why are these types of positions being taken, even while others are still calling global warming “unequivocal” and treating it as a sky-is-falling fact of tragic proportion?

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:

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

“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?

February 23, 2008 Posted by | Diesel, Environment, Environmental Issues, Fraud Alert, Fuel Economy, Global Warming | , , , , | 3 Comments

Global Warming – a classic Copernicus Battle of Paradigms?

The Global Warming issue is certainly a battle of two paradigms.  One paradigm must be more accurate, and the other more flawed.  Each side claims that scientists are being unethically pressured.  Which one is suffering from the proven paradigm impact on scientific research?  No matter which way you’re leaning in the “global warming” and “greenhouse gases” issues, it is critical that you read Dr. Ball’s article which I’ve included below. From one of the world’s greatest and most authoritative Climatologists, it is one of the best overall summary evaluations that I have read of the “global warming crisis”.

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 (, 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.

February 23, 2008 Posted by | Environment, Environmental Issues, Fraud Alert, Global Warming | 1 Comment

Environmental Scientists Reversing Global-Warming Opinions

A major U.S. Senate report is pending which blows the lid on a story the media doesn’t want to talk about.  A remarkable number, a growing number, of famous environmental scientists around the world have turned into full-blown skeptics on global warming.  They point to a growing weight of scientific evidence against global warming, and to the even greater evidence that mankind’s activities have almost no impact on global temperatures. 

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?

May 16, 2007 Posted by | Environment, Environmental Issues, Fraud Alert, Global Warming | Leave a comment

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.

Also check out this link:

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.   Continue reading

January 5, 2007 Posted by | Diesels, Environment, Environmental Issues, Fraud Alert | 6 Comments

2007 Diesel Regulations – Environmental Irresponsibility?

2007 Diesel-engine vehicles are all about an expensive attempt to meet the new EPA regulations by using high EGR percentages, Diesel Particulate Filters, CJ-4 motor oil specifications, and Ultra Low Sulfur diesel fuel.  Now, all this has increased the cost of fuel, reduced fuel economy by 10% (burning MORE non-renewable resources!), increased engine wear rates, and – one can argue – may well increase the amount of used motor oil dumped in the environment, which has a highly negative environmental impact.  So the questions need to be asked: Does the EPA’s strict new diesel emissions regulations really benefit the environment, or does it create a heavier environmental impact?   How important is it to feel good about ridiculously low NOx emission levels which have no demonstrable benefit? 

This could get quite technical, but I’ll keep it simple.  For low engine wear rates (prolonging vehicle life, and reducing both oil consumption and maintenance costs), you must control soot and acid content in the diesel motor oil.  Good levels of ZDDP (a Zinc compound) and sulfated ash are clearly the best and most effective ways to achieve those goals, producing low wear rates and high TBN’s (total base number) for neutralizing acids.  Having plenty of ZDDP and high TBN in a high-quality synthetic oil base-stock means that oil change intervals can be dramatically extended to 25,000 miles in typical diesel pickups, or – by adding bypass filtration systems – oil changes can be completely eliminated.  Amsoil turned this technology into a proven science decades ago, which has been proven in extensive oil analysis sampling and fleet engine rebuild results, and has been repeatedly noted for the strong environmental benefits: 25,000 mile oil change intervals produce more than an 87% reduction in motor oil useage.  The environmental benefits of “extended drain” oil and filter technologies include increased fuel economy, dramatic reductions in the amount of “dumped” used oil and of filters disposed, and improved vehicle emissions.

Unfortunately, the new CJ-4 spec places strict limits on what you can use to get good TBN, keep the engine clean (minimizing emissions increases), increase fuel economy, and reduce wear  – essentially it cripples the oil formulation so that we can’t get what we need for best use of resources.   Amsoil played a vital role in writing this spec, which is what made it possible for the vehicle OEM’s to meet the new EPA emissions reg’s and not destroy their engines or emissions equipment before the warranty is up (they hope).

The issue all goes back to NOx emissions: that’s the first “domino” in the chain, and I’ll walk you down the chain from link to link.  Both Oxygen and Nitrogen are abundantly present in the air anyway.  So the environmental importance of extremely low NOx emissions is highly questionable in my opinion (and I’m not alone in this).  Apart from this, the newer 2002+ diesels are VERY clean and environmentally friendly.  However, based on an assumed importance for extremely low NOx, the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) rates had to be dramatically increased – from a typical 10-15% for the earlier EPA standards, to an amazing 25-35%.  The proof of the technical ridiculousness of this is not that it creates hotter-running engines, but that it results in about a 10% reduction in diesel fuel economy – much of that due to a lot of unburned fuel that exits the exhaust (“soot” as black smoke).  That’s where the diesel particulate filters (DPF’s) come in: these are required in order to trap the soot (unburned fuel), then periodically burn off that unburned fuel – by consuming more fuel.  Once you do all that, you now have exhaust that is both clean AND extremely low in NOx emissions.

Now, you might say “wait a minute.  Do I understand correctly that in order to reduce NOx emissions, they are increasing fuel consumption by 10% – trading a small and very questionable environmental improvement for a 10% increase in the amount of fuel used?”  Yes.  You’ve got the environmental picture so far, except that the story gets worse. 

The DPF’s typically contain SCR technology (Selective Catalyst Reduction), which is a catalytic converter for diesels.  These “cat bricks” will slowly plug up from deposited solids that can’t be burned off, while the fuel economy will get worse and worse as the exhaust backpressure continues to increase.  OEM’s are hoping that they’ll “last” 150,000 miles before the fuel economy gets absurdly bad, but no-one really knows.  Many are concerned about the public backlash when people find out how ridiculously expensive it’s going to be to service or replace these units.  The main factors determining the effective life of an SCR/DPF are fuel quality, engine oil content, and the amount of engine oil that is burned.  (In other words, if you want to keep good fuel economy and avoid expensive repairs on a 2007 diesel for as long as possible, pay close attention!) 

Due to the sensitive nature of the DPF’s, automakers had to reduce every possible source of deposits that could kill DPF performance over time – primarily these two sources:

1) Sulfur in the fuel.  This was dropped from 5,000 ppm (parts per million) to 500 ppm in 1994 with the Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD), and now again in 2006 and 2007 – down to an unbelievable 15 ppm with Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel (ULSD).  Why is this bad?  Not because it’s a pollutant, but because it slowly plugs your DPF.  That’s why you DO NOT want to use LSD in a 2007 or later diesel: it kills your DPF 33 times faster. 

Problem is, the Sulfur is an important lubricant for the fuel injector pump and the fuel injectors, and Europe’s experience proved the ULSD puts these expensive components in a junkyard in far less than half their normal life.  U.S. experts don’t think the federal regulations will do much to ensure that fuel-station owners and attendants will remember to dose the diesel with the correct level of lubrication additives.  So a word to the wise: put your own additive into your fuel tank during every fillup!

2) Sulfated ash, Phosphorus, Sulfur, and Zinc in engine oils.  Those contents all play key roles in oil performance, but now they must be restricted.  Because after all, a very slight amount of oil does get consumed in the engine and exits through the exhaust.  And with higher EGR rates, even more oil is likely to be burned.  Again, the problem with each of these four is that they accumulate in the DPF catalyst “brick” and plug it up.

By severely limiting these elements and compounds in the motor oil, the performance capability of the oil has been limited.  And to a great extent, the use of synthetic oils becomes almost essential.  But whether synthetics or fossil-oil, this logically means that the diesel engine oil must be changed more frequently than would otherwise be needed, again consuming more natural resources that are non-renewable, and probably increasing the amount of used oil dumped in the environment.

Specifically, the CJ-4 oils are limited in their capability to reduce wear, to control/disperse soot, and to neutralize acids.  The soot and acid issue means that premium synthetics are limited to lower maximum extended drain intervals. At the same time, the higher EGR rates are producing more soot and more acid in the oil, both of which are proven to reduce engine life.  So oil performance and engine life have both been compromised by these CJ-4 requirements.  To better see what I mean, compare the specs for AMSOIL’s new CJ-4 diesel oil, with the flagship CI-4 Plus Diesel Oil: the new CJ-4 doesn’t perform near as well in the NOACK volatility or the 4-Ball Wear Test, and check out the huge difference in TBN’s.

Kudos to Amsoil, not only because their CJ-4 oil performance is still better than most CI-4+ oils, but because it’s available and has already logged over 12 million fleet miles: most oil companies still don’t have a CJ-4 diesel engine oil formulation, much less have it available in the U.S. market as of October 2006. 

So here are the cards we’ve turned over: the risk of increased motor-oil dumping, an additional 10% fuel consumption penalty (that just gets worse as the DPF back-pressure increases), an additional $700-7,000 per vehicle for the technology, and reduced engine life (at least compared to what it would otherwise be, not accounting for tribology advances that may offset the difference now or in the future).  Now that all those cards are on the table, who wins?   Does this make any environmental sense?  Are those penalties really justified merely in order to take very low NOx emissions to an extremely low level? 

Why did sales of 2006 diesels skyrocket as large fleets pushed to replace all older equipment with 2006 models?  Because the people who know the situation are deeply concerned about the large negative impact of these new regulations on our businesses and economy.  And don’t let the media fool you – the people who pay the bill for ALL of this are us – the consumers, and the taxpayers.

Knock, knock, EPA – is anyone with a brain at home?  Why would responsible environmental groups push for such results or support them?  Sounds like lunacy to me.  Has the EPA abandoned being an Environmental Protection Agency?  Since when did Congress vote to make them a Politically Correct Regulation Agency?  I vote for rolling back the 2007 NOx diesel emissions requirements, in order to reduce diesel fuel consumption by 10%, reduce the cost of the vehicles, reduce vehicle maintenance, extend vehicle life, and not force everyone to waste money to harm the environment while pretending to help it.  Anyone else on the side of sanity and holding government agencies responsible for their assigned roles?

Update on environmental FRAUD: 

October 23, 2006 Posted by | Diesels, Environment, Environmental Issues, Lubrication Oils & Fluids | 11 Comments