Filed under: Etc., AutoblogGreen Exclusive, Green Daily, At Witz End
At Witz' End - Lies and Deceptions
Scientists challenge today's biggest and most dangerous lie
A few months ago, I was asked to speak to a group of engineers and researchers toiling on high-tech projects under the auspices of USCAR (United States Council for Automotive Research), the umbrella organization for collaborative research among Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. The occasion was an annual luncheon where awards and recognitions are handed out for successes, extraordinary efforts and hard work well done.
Hot news at that time was Toyota's potentially passing GM in global sales...one more major milestone in the woeful declines of General Motors, "Detroit" and industrial America in general. But I noticed no one reporting the pertinent fact that Toyota sells some 2.5 million vehicles a year in its highly protected home market, to GM's next to none. Or that GM handily outsells Toyota nearly everywhere else, including here in the U.S.
Then I saw a cable-news panel of supposedly smart investment advisors attributing Detroit's ongoing woes to inferior quality and fuel economy. These tired, old misperceptions, blithely communicated as facts, provided inspiration for my talk, "Lies and Misperceptions."
Following a brief introduction, I asked the group for a show of hands: "How many believe that import-vehicle quality is better than domestic?" Not one hand went up. "Japanese vs. domestic?" Still none. Good! I cited some proof from J.D. Power and other quality surveys. "Imports deliver better fuel economy than domestics." Still no hands. Excellent! "An 'American' car is one built in America." A scattering of hands. I suggested that an "American" vehicle is one that wears a domestic brand, regardless of assembly location, because it supports U.S.-maker headquarters jobs (not just assembly and sales jobs), and the money it brings stays in this country to support this economy and that American company.
At Witz' End continues after the break.
"CAFE federal fuel economy standards should be substantially raised," I said. Another scattering of hands. I pointed out that CAFE has counterproductively encouraged more fuel consumption by reducing the cost of driving; that major increases will increase the cost of vehicles while decreasing their capabilities, safety and desirability; and that only sustained high fuel prices will change Americans' buying and driving habits. Not much argument there.
"The earth is warming." About half raised their hands. Yes, it has been...slowly and slightly, as it has countless times in history. "CO2 is causing it." A few concurred. Most educated technical folks understand that carbon dioxide, the harmless gas we breathe out and plants breathe in (and the fizz in our beer and cokes) is just four percent of so-called "greenhouse" gases, and that honest scientists without personal motives or agendas confirm that the earth's warming and cooling periods have always correlated with solar activity.
"We humans are the culprits." The same few hands. The majority knew that 96 percent of newly created CO2 is natural, less than four percent man-made, that past warm periods throughout history have occurred without help from SUVs, and that the most recent global cooling period (1943-1977) happened even as man-made CO2 was dramatically increasing.
I concluded that they all should communicate these truths and not let harmful lies and misperceptions stand unchallenged. I didn't say then what I strongly believe: that some big lies and misperceptions are intentionally perpetuated by people with motives and agendas, and that man-made "global warming" may be the biggest of all time.
The deceivers and the deceived insist "the debate is over." They tout a scientific "consensus" that human-generated CO2 is causing potentially disastrous "global warming" and that only drastic measures can prevent it. They know they can't win a fair debate, so they seek to cut it off. Many plan to profit hugely from combating "global warming." Scientists who refute it (those whose livelihoods don't depend on it) are threatened and demonized.
Now comes this myth-shattering "open letter" to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, which clearly demonstrates that the so-called "consensus" is as big a hoax as the unproven theory it supports. It is signed by more than 100 highly credible scientists from around the world, about 80 percent of them PhDs -- not "TV weathermen" as "global warming" preachers and disciples have charged. Below are some telling excerpts from this letter, plus a link to it and all who signed it.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages....
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers...are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts....
The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.... Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998....
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.... Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions.... Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully, [List of signatories] Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.
Here is a link to the entire letter and the scientists who signed it, with titles and affiliations. It can also be found by going to www.epw.senate.gov, clicking on the "Minority" side, then searching "Open Letter to UN."
Note: Award-winning automotive writer Gary Witzenburg has been writing about automobiles, auto people and the auto industry for 20 years. A former auto engineer, race driver and advanced technology vehicle development manager, he has been a regular contributor to a wide variety of national magazines including Playboy, The Robb Report, Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Autoweek and Automobile Quarterly and has authored eight automotive books. He is currently a Contributing Editor or Contributing Writer for AutoMedia.com, Kelley Blue Book, Automobilemag.com and TheCarConnection.com, Design Editor for Automotive Traveler and a North American Car and Truck of the Year Juror. He will also be contributing regular columns to AutoblogGreen (this is his first) and is ready for your comments below.
A few months ago, I was asked to speak to a group of engineers and researchers toiling on high-tech projects under the auspices of USCAR (United States Council for Automotive Research), the umbrella organization for collaborative research among Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. The occasion was an annual luncheon where awards and recognitions are handed out for successes, extraordinary efforts and hard work well done. Hot news at that time was Toyota's potentially passing GM in global sales...one more major milestone in the woeful declines of General Motors, "Detroit" and industrial America in general. But I noticed no one reporting the pertinent fact that Toyota sells some 2.5 million vehicles a year in its highly protected home market, to GM's next to none. Or that GM handily outsells Toyota nearly everywhere else, including here in the U.S.
Then I saw a cable-news panel of supposedly smart investment advisors attributing Detroit's ongoing woes to inferior quality and fuel economy. These tired, old misperceptions, blithely communicated as facts, provided inspiration for my talk, "Lies and Misperceptions."
Following a brief introduction, I asked the group for a show of hands: "How many believe that import-vehicle quality is better than domestic?" Not one hand went up. "Japanese vs. domestic?" Still none. Good! I cited some proof from J.D. Power and other quality surveys. "Imports deliver better fuel economy than domestics." Still no hands. Excellent! "An 'American' car is one built in America." A scattering of hands. I suggested that an "American" vehicle is one that wears a domestic brand, regardless of assembly location, because it supports U.S.-maker headquarters jobs (not just assembly and sales jobs), and the money it brings stays in this country to support this economy and that American company.
At Witz' End continues after the break.
"CAFE federal fuel economy standards should be substantially raised," I said. Another scattering of hands. I pointed out that CAFE has counterproductively encouraged more fuel consumption by reducing the cost of driving; that major increases will increase the cost of vehicles while decreasing their capabilities, safety and desirability; and that only sustained high fuel prices will change Americans' buying and driving habits. Not much argument there.
"The earth is warming." About half raised their hands. Yes, it has been...slowly and slightly, as it has countless times in history. "CO2 is causing it." A few concurred. Most educated technical folks understand that carbon dioxide, the harmless gas we breathe out and plants breathe in (and the fizz in our beer and cokes) is just four percent of so-called "greenhouse" gases, and that honest scientists without personal motives or agendas confirm that the earth's warming and cooling periods have always correlated with solar activity.
"We humans are the culprits." The same few hands. The majority knew that 96 percent of newly created CO2 is natural, less than four percent man-made, that past warm periods throughout history have occurred without help from SUVs, and that the most recent global cooling period (1943-1977) happened even as man-made CO2 was dramatically increasing.
I concluded that they all should communicate these truths and not let harmful lies and misperceptions stand unchallenged. I didn't say then what I strongly believe: that some big lies and misperceptions are intentionally perpetuated by people with motives and agendas, and that man-made "global warming" may be the biggest of all time.
The deceivers and the deceived insist "the debate is over." They tout a scientific "consensus" that human-generated CO2 is causing potentially disastrous "global warming" and that only drastic measures can prevent it. They know they can't win a fair debate, so they seek to cut it off. Many plan to profit hugely from combating "global warming." Scientists who refute it (those whose livelihoods don't depend on it) are threatened and demonized.
Now comes this myth-shattering "open letter" to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, which clearly demonstrates that the so-called "consensus" is as big a hoax as the unproven theory it supports. It is signed by more than 100 highly credible scientists from around the world, about 80 percent of them PhDs -- not "TV weathermen" as "global warming" preachers and disciples have charged. Below are some telling excerpts from this letter, plus a link to it and all who signed it.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages....
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers...are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts....
The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.... Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998....
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.... Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions.... Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully, [List of signatories] Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.
Here is a link to the entire letter and the scientists who signed it, with titles and affiliations. It can also be found by going to www.epw.senate.gov, clicking on the "Minority" side, then searching "Open Letter to UN."
Note: Award-winning automotive writer Gary Witzenburg has been writing about automobiles, auto people and the auto industry for 20 years. A former auto engineer, race driver and advanced technology vehicle development manager, he has been a regular contributor to a wide variety of national magazines including Playboy, The Robb Report, Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Autoweek and Automobile Quarterly and has authored eight automotive books. He is currently a Contributing Editor or Contributing Writer for AutoMedia.com, Kelley Blue Book, Automobilemag.com and TheCarConnection.com, Design Editor for Automotive Traveler and a North American Car and Truck of the Year Juror. He will also be contributing regular columns to AutoblogGreen (this is his first) and is ready for your comments below.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Earl 12:54PM (6/10/2008)
Please explain the keeling curve to me then if this is all natural CO2 production, then explain why the arctic will be ice free very shortly, and then show me the data that solar activity is increasing. GW deniers talk a lot, but never ever have any scientific data to back it up.
Reply
Joel Israel 8:35PM (7/05/2008)
What to do??? Would we do it if we could? I think that is the real question. Or will we just continue to roll over and say your oil or mine? Pardon the pun. While a complete boycott is near impossible - a boycott in part could start the ball rolling. Insted of buying from just who ever - buy only from one or two oil companies like B.P. and Aamco and boycott the big boys like Exxon/Mobile, Chevron, Texaco and Citgo. this would start a price war within their own industry and could send prices down. We Can Do Somthing!!! SPREAD THE WORD!
Steve 12:54PM (6/10/2008)
I'm willing to leave the climate science to climate scientists, with full understanding that they can be wrong.
But as for vehicle quality, he's nuts. Why do Japanese cars depreciate more slowly? Because everybody knows that an old Honda or Toyota or Nissan will go for 250k+ miles without having to spend more than the car is worth to repair it. American cars? Not so.
I admit that this is more applicable to older cars from the 90s and early 00s. Yes, Detroit has been doing better on initial quality surveys and "reliability" measures. But those are based exclusively on car's early life--under 100k miles. No one much cares what happens to the car when it's under warranty (it's just an inconvenience). It's after the warranty that things really go wrong. The new Detroit cars are going to have to prove that they can last as long as Japanese cars do. Until we see American cars with 180k miles selling for over $3500, I sure as hell won't believe that Detroit's cars can match Japan's.
Reply
Earl 1:02PM (6/10/2008)
Why is Autoblog Green posting pro-oil / pro American Car Manufacturer's propaganda? Is this really the forum for this?
Reply
HydroWizard 1:07PM (6/10/2008)
I have several problems with this article. He is wrong on several points. I believe that this author is promoting lies and deceptions the exact opposite of ones which he claims! Global climate change is real. It's happening right now, and it's largely due to human activity. Fact. There is a mountain of evidence to support that statement. He is also wrong about the quality of American cars. I agree with post #2. Let's get real. Most American cars are inferior to German and Japanese design. Even the Koreans are beginning to surpass the Americans.
Reply
Andy 1:16PM (6/10/2008)
Huh?
If I wanted to read articles about climate change denial, I would be over at the Fox News site.
Even leaving out climate change stuff, you have "More efficient cars cause people to use more fuel..." ???
Is AutoBlogGreen really serving its purpose having regular contributors write articles like this for it? And if so, what exactly is that purpose? I've always come here for news about new "green" automotive technologies, not this garbage.
Reply
Jimmy 1:18PM (6/10/2008)
Welcome. I'm not sure this is the best place to debate climate change. I do think there is a broad consensus that we need to reduce our use of petroleum and support "green" cars that either use less petroleum (small cars, hybrids, diesel, HCCI) or none at all (biofuels, electric, fuel cell, etc..).
If the motivation is climate change, national energy security, peak oil predictions or reducing the foreign trade deficit, the solutions are all very similar!
Reply
BrianM 1:24PM (6/10/2008)
The Earths climate is cyclic... meaning it gets warmer, then cools... over and over again. A quick quote and link:
"Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present."
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
This isn't the only source, just the first (literally the first Google result). I'm not going to argue about if Man is aiding in the warming. That's not the point... the point is that the Earth is normally warmer than it is right now, and it will cool itself off again when needed. Just as we do (humans) each and every day. We cool at night and warm in the day (take your temp. a few times a day).
Past that I agree with the above posts about vehicle quality. I have the distinct mis-fortune of having to drive a lot of rental cars, most of them "American". There is a HUGE discrepancy between the fit, finish and feel of these cars and my 2 personal vehicles that both have more than 150k miles on them. Believers can buy all the American vehicles they want, but I won't waste my money on one.
Reply
Bill S. 1:29PM (6/10/2008)
Wow. I have to agree with Earl. If this is intended as a concise summary of the Alice-In-Wonderland rationalizing from the right, then well done. A point-by-point rebuttal would be lengthy and redundant.
Let me complete the argument instead. Gas isn't really skyrocketing in price, the big 2.5 are building just the cars that Americans want and need, and tornadoes and floods are caused by Hollywood liberals.
Reply
Oliver Sun 1:30PM (6/10/2008)
The press release by Marc Morano (is anyone claiming unpoliticized or unbiased here?) is dated Dec. 13, 2007.
Even on the Internet it is considered poor form to dredge up an old topic and portray it as Headline News.
There are plenty of worthwhile discussions to have about alleged climate change and the ethics and practicality of responding to it. Why add to the lies and deceptions side?
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 1:31PM (6/10/2008)
Although I fall into the camp which believes that man probably has something to do with climate change, I personally welcome Gary's viewpoint. After all, it's kinda hard to have an enlightened debate when everybody has the same opinions.
Reply
mlf 1:41PM (6/10/2008)
Wow, a whole 100 scientists agreed to sign that letter? And a handfull of them are even climatologists? Who can argue with numbers like that? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:47PM (6/10/2008)
autobloggreen.com doesn't really seem to be living up to its name lately. With lots of articles about GM SUV "hybrids" and crap like this.
Time to find another blog, one with real green cred.
Reply
Whopper 1:47PM (6/10/2008)
"Why do Japanese cars depreciate more slowly?" A matter of perception which often has nothing to do with facts. Only a "bean counter" would worry about depreciation so Steve, move to Japan. The Japanese build "appliances" for people who wouldn't know a good car or truck until it ran over them. I got $5K for my 1992 Silverado with 276K miles on it and then bought a 2003. Gave the 2003 Silverado to my son with 146K on it and now have a 2008. Brakes, tires and oil are all any of them ever needed.
"Why is Autoblog Green posting pro-oil / pro American Car Manufacturer's propaganda? Is this really the forum for this?" That's right Earl, we surely don't want anything but anti-oil/anti American Car Mfg stuff here...go jump off the cliff with Steve, you lemming. You don't want to hear or understand the other side of an issue.
"He is also wrong about the quality of American cars. I agree with post #2. Let's get real. Most American cars are inferior to German and Japanese design. Even the Koreans are beginning to surpass the Americans. " Where are your facts HydroWizbang? Porsche is building SUV's and trading on it's brand, Mercedes has fallen in quality (Automotive News, Autoline, Autoweek - sources, not conjecture) and BMW's are overpriced (they build a fine two wheeler though). The Koreans still build "disposable" cars...how green is that? Ask bean counter Steve what the resale value is on a three year old Kia. Whatever you guys do for a living I'm sure I can get it done better, faster and cheaper in Sri Lanka.
Reply
James Bowe 1:53PM (6/10/2008)
Jeremy if you want to argue with fools be my guest, but remember that old saying...
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 2:03PM (6/10/2008)
James, arguing and debating are completely different.
Reply
Jimmy 2:05PM (6/10/2008)
paulwesterberg, I'd much rather read about a Hybrid SUV than disgusting naked cyclists. At least the SUV is an *auto*mobile!
Reply
MarcT 2:13PM (6/10/2008)
"GM handily outsells Toyota nearly everywhere else, including here in the U.S."
Look at last month's US sales. GM, with 7(?) divisions, outsold Toyota by only 15000 units. The Japanese dont want GM cars. They buy other imports, Bimmers, Benzes, Audis, but not GM. Do you blame 'em?
"I cited some proof from J.D. Power and other quality surveys"
Here's some proof that I'll actually cite, instead of just syaing I will cite...
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007088
Porsche and Lexus are top 2, Foreign nameplates occupy 10 out of top 13 spots (above industry average).
""Imports deliver better fuel economy than domestics." Still no hands. "
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml
Indeed, imports do deliver much better fuel economy, okay maybe not the imported Veyron....
"I suggested that an "American" vehicle is one that wears a domestic brand, regardless of assembly location, because it supports U.S.-maker headquarters jobs"
I guess supporting Roger Smith, Bill Ford, Bob Putz, et al is WAY more important than supporting assembly line workers.
"CAFE has counterproductively encouraged more fuel consumption by reducing the cost of driving"
CAFE only encouraged more truck and SUV buying because it was too weak in those categories.
So he's basically wacked on all his points about the auto industry, yet somehow, he's supposed to ALSO be an expert on climate change. What a nutcase.
Why, oh why, did he get precious column space on this site. C'mon ABG, having to put up with right-wing, anti-environment trolls who often post here is bad enough. But this is a new low. I'm all for stimulating debate (diesels v hybrids, ethanol v oil, etc.) But this is just a pack of lies and propaganda. I think to go along with this, we need another CNW story about how eco-friendly the Hummer is.
Reply
Julia 2:17PM (6/10/2008)
So sorry to read that everyone posting on this article has a closed mind! I say THANK YOU for having the courage to present the other side of the coin. I, too have heard these statistics from scientists I've worked with in the past. Good article, good job!
Reply
MikeW 2:25PM (6/10/2008)
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396
Reply