BACKFIRE: In the Eye of the Beholder

In the Eye of the Beholder Dear Jacques, Just finished your editorial on global warming in the March 2007 (page 16) issue. You mention that global warming is a “well-documented” fact. Careful. The argument revolves around “scientific consensus.” So, in this global warming debate, there are just as many reputable scientists that disagree as agree. That tells me that all the evidence is not in.

Before I switched to marketing in college, I was a chemistry major for two years, with college-level physics, chemistry and calculus. One thing you learn quickly in that arena is that the scientific method is not based on consensus. You develop a theory and attempt to prove it in a controlled lab environment. If it proves unsuccessful (less than 100 percent) or unrepeatable, than either the theory was not valid or the methodology used to test is flawed. Either way, you go back to the drawing board and try again.

So, in this global warming debate, there are just as many reputable scientists that disagree as agree. That tells me that all the evidence is not in. In fact, if you follow the argument closely, you’ll notice that the main claim is a temperature rise of less than 1°F in the last century. There is a fundamental problem with this theory: instrumentation. We have not possessed instrumentation accurate enough past roughly 60 years to make that claim and back it up. More scientific testing is necessary. Write to Motor Age
Send your letters,
comments and ideas to:
Motor Age
Two Northfield Plaza, Ste. 300
Northfield, IL 60093
Fax: (847) 441-3777
or e-mail them to:
[email protected]All submissions are subject to
publication and may be edited
for grammar and space.

Now, here me clearly, I’m not saying that the earth is not warming, but at this point no one really knows. The earth seems to go through very cyclical patterns, lasting much longer than the 100-year window being discussed. Global warming is a religion to some on the left side of the spectrum, and must be understood for what it is – an attempt to blame Western industrialized nations for consuming too much of the global resources. Lots of truth in the latter part of that statement, but not a reason to claim the sky is falling. Since we exhale carbon dioxide (CO2), and trees use it for photosynthesis, the argument is very, very weak, seeing as how the same bunch claims we are deforesting the world. It is also documented that one volcano can produce more CO2 than all our cars, so source is not defined either.

When it can be proven, I’ll feel a little more guilt. I do wish we would get going on alternate fuels, so maybe we keep pushing for a better diesel alternative. In the meantime, my daily driver is fuel injected, catalytic converted, EVAP’d, and OBD II’d, so I don’t feel guilty about firing up my Boss 302 once a month for a nice ride around the neighborhood.

Keep up the good work. Best regards,
Bob Augustine
Robert Bosch LLC Diagnostics Business Unit