epa-and-doj-settle-derive-systems-over-vehicle-emissions-control-defeat-devices - Page 4 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Go Back  Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Diesel > General Diesel Discussion
Reload this Page >

epa-and-doj-settle-derive-systems-over-vehicle-emissions-control-defeat-devices

Notices
General Diesel Discussion  
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

epa-and-doj-settle-derive-systems-over-vehicle-emissions-control-defeat-devices

  #46  
Old 10-24-2018, 03:33 PM
00t444e's Avatar
00t444e
00t444e is online now
Elder User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Southern OH
Posts: 959
00t444e is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.00t444e is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by 82_F100_300Six View Post
I was wondering about all of the airliners burning tons of fuel. Supposedly there's so many planes flying now at all times it's incredible.
yes I know it's probably not gonna work to install EGR and DPF on Airbus and Boeing 767.
But consider those planes are WFO for hours.
Something else I see regularly is tug boats not even moving with idk how many diesel engines running... constantly.
Then you have all the other countries who don't have any regard whatsoever for emissions.
(I'm not saying we should abandon our efforts because of what I listed)
It wouldn't make a difference either way.
 
  #47  
Old 10-27-2018, 09:54 AM
SkiSmuggs
SkiSmuggs is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 953
SkiSmuggs has a good reputation on FTE.SkiSmuggs has a good reputation on FTE.
While I realize that folks often use tuners to defeat emission controls, I've only used emissions friendly tunes. Tunes from both 5-Star and DP-Tuner have improved my regen interval which tells me they produce less soot.
 
  #48  
Old 11-10-2018, 01:46 AM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I agree that the coal rollers give all of us diesel truck owners a bad name and bad image. I also like clean air. There is a problem in our oceans with man made plastic waste. We have smog in the big cities. There has been changes in our climate and sea levels. But I am a skeptic of the whole global warming concept. I may get bashed for this but I plan to return here with new information to counter the proponents of this. This does not mean I agree with the concept of deleting our trucks or any diesel truck, that it's okay to roll coal and be an obnoxious ***hole. This just means I question the information that is out there and the hysteria it is creating.

Many here may also agree that Russia interfered in our 2016 Presidential election. But I don't. Enough said.

I remember the hysteria over the Y2K deal. The world didn't end. We are still here. What happened to the Ozone layer that was supposed to be gone? Al Gore and his predictions? I'm not saying that we humans are not doing damage to the planet. What I am saying is I don't buy into the doom and gloom.

I don't trust the mainstream media. When I gather some more information on this, I will be back. Good night.
 
  #49  
Old 11-11-2018, 01:47 AM
Pocket
Pocket is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 8,978
Pocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by Overkill2 View Post
I agree that the coal rollers give all of us diesel truck owners a bad name and bad image. I also like clean air. There is a problem in our oceans with man made plastic waste. We have smog in the big cities. There has been changes in our climate and sea levels. But I am a skeptic of the whole global warming concept. I may get bashed for this but I plan to return here with new information to counter the proponents of this. This does not mean I agree with the concept of deleting our trucks or any diesel truck, that it's okay to roll coal and be an obnoxious ***hole. This just means I question the information that is out there and the hysteria it is creating.

Many here may also agree that Russia interfered in our 2016 Presidential election. But I don't. Enough said.

I remember the hysteria over the Y2K deal. The world didn't end. We are still here. What happened to the Ozone layer that was supposed to be gone? Al Gore and his predictions? I'm not saying that we humans are not doing damage to the planet. What I am saying is I don't buy into the doom and gloom.

I don't trust the mainstream media. When I gather some more information on this, I will be back. Good night.
Honestly I'm trying to figure out how you plan to dispute the majority of climate study experts across the entire planet..... with what degree or expert field of study exactly? Just wondering what exactly makes you the expert, while those who actually do climate studies for a living can't possibly provide enough evidence for you to believe what is happening to our planet? I'm dying to know!!
 
  #50  
Old 11-11-2018, 09:22 AM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by Pocket View Post
Honestly I'm trying to figure out how you plan to dispute the majority of climate study experts across the entire planet..... with what degree or expert field of study exactly? Just wondering what exactly makes you the expert, while those who actually do climate studies for a living can't possibly provide enough evidence for you to believe what is happening to our planet? I'm dying to know!!
You reacted just as I thought you would, Mr. Pocket. So just because I don't exactly agree with the consensus that you and others here are pushing, that makes me an "expert?" I don't understand that. No respect for other opinions? Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like a typical Democrat. There are so many claims that Al Gore made that have not come true. No one is denying that the climate is changing as it has always changed.

Another thing you have to look at is what would be the motivation behind the concept of "Global warming?" Money maybe and the politics that go along with that? To use cancer as an example as I lost my sister in 2016, I remember reading an article years back about a drug for cancer patients in which it increased the quality of life for the patients, but not a cure if I remember correctly. The reason I bring this up is that the business of cancer research is a multi billion dollar industry. If someone came up with a drug like that or one that even cured cancer, it would be a threat to this industry and a lot of jobs. Drugs like that possibly do exist, but are squashed because of the politics involved. What I am saying is that there is an industry behind this global warming agenda and a lot of money and taxes are paid. Before you accuse me of not caring for the earth and it's condition, I do. I just think that this global warming is a political agenda. We do have issues with pollution that have to be dealt with.

With that being said, when you have celebrities and politicians alike pushing this "doom and gloom" scenario, I don't just buy into it. I'm not an expert. I don't go with the crowd and I don't mind standing alone. I'm still using K-100 and have 34k miles now. The HPFP has not blown up. If it does, I'll be the first to admit it here. I have no problem going against the flow. I also don't think every scientist goes along with this concept of global warming. I'm not going to sit here and argue the science. I'll let the scientists who disagree with this do it.

 
  #51  
Old 11-11-2018, 09:26 AM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
  #52  
Old 11-11-2018, 11:29 AM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
  #53  
Old 11-11-2018, 01:47 PM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
  #54  
Old 11-11-2018, 03:18 PM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Watching that video, I learned something today about Africa. Their people are suffering due to Global warming political agenda because they can't use their own natural resources. Like what was said at the end of the video, the poorest part of the world "has" to use the most expensive sources of power such as wind and solar; essentially, they are being told by the UN and the powers that be that they can't have electricity because they would pollute the world and create too much carbon dioxide. I hope this helps just one person here to see what is actually going on. Change happens one person at a time. I probably listen to the news sources and radio sources that most don't. I question everything. Like I said before, I do not trust the mainstream media as they are not journalists anymore. They stoke the fires with politically driven propaganda.

When I mentioned I am against deleting trucks, what I actually meant was I am against these deleted fools rolling their coal because of either dirty tunes or they drive around with the 200 hp Race tune. I have a 7 year/125k mile warranty on my truck. Once the warranty is up, I MAY decide to delete if the DPF system gives me trouble or needs replacement. IF, and that's a big IF, I do delete, it would be a stock like tune as I want to keep the truck stock like because it makes plenty of power for me. We shall see what time brings. It is rather amusing that we have to burn MORE of a NONRENEWABLE source of energy to keep the air clean. Again, I am for clean air but it seems like you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
  #55  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:36 PM
Pocket
Pocket is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 8,978
Pocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputation
Good job on posting fake and falsified political videos, wingnut propaganda, and wild conspiracy theories, while completely avoiding peer-reviewed scientific studies. There’s no reason to discuss this further.
 
  #56  
Old Yesterday, 09:13 AM
Overkill2's Avatar
Overkill2
Overkill2 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Western NY
Posts: 402
Overkill2 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by Pocket View Post
Good job on posting fake and falsified political videos, wingnut propaganda, and wild conspiracy theories, while completely avoiding peer-reviewed scientific studies. There’s no reason to discuss this further.
I'm not the smartest guy here but I think someone here thinks he is. I understand and respect your opinion on this subject but that doesn't make you an expert because a person doesn't agree with a popular consensus. I'm not looking to change your mind. I'm just defending my point of view. You stand with Al Gore on this, I get it. But stop acting like there can't be conversations like this. That's the problem with our country today. Some People expect others to fall in line with their POVs and if they don't, attack them to prevent the conversation which is exactly how you are acting here. I could go off on some wicked tangents here but I'll keep it in the subject matter.

How is it a conspiracy theory when actual guys who do this for a living say that man made global warming is not TRUE?

The science isn't settled here. Once again, I'll make this disclaimer that I do care about the environment and our planet earth but you have your head so far buried if you think that global warming issue isn't a political issue. It's 110 percent pure politics. We can agree to disagree here but you have to lose that superiority attitude of yours. If the other person in the conversation doesn't respect the person's POV, then you are CORRECT. There's no further reason to have this discussion.
 
  #57  
Old Yesterday, 10:23 AM
Pocket
Pocket is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 8,978
Pocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by Overkill2 View Post
I'm not the smartest guy here but I think someone here thinks he is. I understand and respect your opinion on this subject but that doesn't make you an expert because a person doesn't agree with a popular consensus. I'm not looking to change your mind. I'm just defending my point of view. You stand with Al Gore on this, I get it. But stop acting like there can't be conversations like this. That's the problem with our country today. Some People expect others to fall in line with their POVs and if they don't, attack them to prevent the conversation which is exactly how you are acting here. I could go off on some wicked tangents here but I'll keep it in the subject matter.
I'm not the expert, and neither is Al Gore.

What I rely on is peer-reviewed scientific studies. In other words, I rely on the true experts (AKA those who actually do this stuff for a living)... not politicians with agendas, not partisan groups creating bogus videos and spreading hoaxes.

Originally Posted by Overkill2 View Post
How is it a conspiracy theory when actual guys who do this for a living say that man made global warming is not TRUE?
You've been duped. The videos you've posted are falsified. They cherry pick only a fact or two, and then the rest is made up hoaxes and conspiracies.

The first video you posted is from The Red Elephants, a known extreme right-wing bias and hoax web site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-red-elephants/

The 2nd video comes from 1000Frolly, a pseudo-science Youtube channel dedicated to malicious attacks on actual scientific studies. The creator behind it is Christopher Monckton, who is a climate change denier, but actually has degrees in journalism and literature.... zero science studies degrees or training.

The 3rd video shows John Coleman, a former TV meteorologist and a co-founder of The Weather Channel. He has many journalistic accolades, but he himself is not a scientist. He actually dropped out of American Meteorological Society due his views of climate change, and was criticized for having actually never conducted any scientific studies about the earth's climate while lacking any credentials to make him any kind of expert in the field.

The last video was created by Martin Durkin, and was aired in the UK back in 2007. It was met with criticism from the scientific community, who found that much of the data shown in the "documentary" was mis-represented and fabricated. Two scientists featured in the video, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, both came forward and claimed that they were mis-represented in the video.

Originally Posted by Overkill2 View Post
The science isn't settled here. Once again, I'll make this disclaimer that I do care about the environment and our planet earth but you have your head so far buried if you think that global warming issue isn't a political issue. It's 110 percent pure politics. We can agree to disagree here but you have to lose that superiority attitude of yours. If the other person in the conversation doesn't respect the person's POV, then you are CORRECT. There's no further reason to have this discussion.
As you can see, each of your sources are falsified. You only claim it's political because you blatantly avoid actual peer-reviewed scientific studies and instead you intentionally seek out these politically motivated videos.

It has nothing to do with superiority attitude, it has everything to do with data and facts, something you have demonstrated here that you have no interest in researching. I took the time to research the background behind those 4 videos to prove that you are intentionally spreading misinformation to support your claims. So no, I can't respect your POV on this topic if you don't take the time to do factual research yourself. There won't be a rational discussion if you refuse to acknowledge facts.
 
  #58  
Old Yesterday, 01:29 PM
Beechkid
Beechkid is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,309
Beechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud ofBeechkid has much to be proud of
Let's look at it from this standpoint...…. Exxon/Mobile Corporation was the company that was awarded this multi-year research contract (10 IIRR), and yes, then CEO Rex Tillerson (then to become US Secretary of State), at the helm of the corporation. As published, EMC utilized a vast amount of resources including "algorithmic software" to provide the conclusions of the report which were as reported based upon the "standards of science"..... meaning, 1) did the analysis accomplish the findings it was set out to do and 2) does it stand the test of repeatability.....

Ok, personally, I have a hard time believing on the face value, that EMC as both a company and specifically their PHd's, would place their standing in the scientific community in jeopardy on this particular aspect.... especially since it is not exactly "kind" to the oil industry. but.....

if we truly have doubt of the validity of the report in any way, this is considered "Fraud, Waste and Abuse" of tax payer funds.... ie. fraud was committed, therefor, the DOJ should be investigating this multi-million dollar federal contract.... and to submit a falsified report of this magnitude is criminal....

I am not an attorney, but had a lot of training in what constitutes "Fraud, Waste and Abuse" of taxpayer funds.

So, for those who truly believe (and I sincerely believe there are those who have that level of concern/belief), write to your elected officials and demand an investigation..... this will bring to light corrupt practices, procedures, analysis, and/or erroneous conclusions outside of the standards of science (published) and will validate the truth for all of us.
 
  #59  
Old Yesterday, 09:31 PM
00t444e's Avatar
00t444e
00t444e is online now
Elder User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Southern OH
Posts: 959
00t444e is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.00t444e is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
As I said before the theory of man made climate change is nothing more than a political agenda. The general belief shared by the people who promote this theory is that co2 (Carbon Dioxide) produced by the burning of fossil fuels is creating too much greenhouse gas, which causes climate change. However there are a few issues with that theory, the first one is that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor the other 5% is mainly Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and a few other gasses, at the most Carbon Dioxide makes up only 3% of total amount of greenhouse gas. Human activity is only responsible for roughly 3-4% of total Carbon Dioxide, the rest naturally occurs. So at best the Carbon Dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels is only responsible for 0.12% of all greenhouse gas, not a great amount by any means. The second problem is, in the thousands of years that the Earth has been here co2 levels have been higher than they have today ( we are at roughly 400 ppm), it was around 425 ppm when we were coming out of the last ice age, obviously with no human intervention, even during the 1800s it spiked to 480 ppm, yet they claim that it is at a record high that only began increasing in the 1960s due to burning fossil fuels. The third thing is co2 is very important for plant growth and studies show that increasing co2 levels would greatly benefit plant growth, and increase food production across the globe, yet those same people who are yelling "save the trees" are wanting to decrease co2 levels, again contradicting themselves. The majority of the of the studies to prove man made climate change is real come from the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the NAS ( National Acadamy of Science) both of which are government funded, so of course they are going get the results the government (or governments in the case of the UN) want them to so they can get their money. What this does is allow them to tax, and regulate pretty much anything they want to, Carbon Credits (one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of) are an example of this, but it makes it easy to see that in the grand scheme of things all it is about is money and control.
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age

https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/w...raise-co2.html
 
  #60  
Old Today, 12:30 AM
Pocket
Pocket is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 8,978
Pocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputationPocket has a superb reputation
Time to yet again bust the pseudo-science posts.....

Originally Posted by 00t444e View Post
As I said before the theory of man made climate change is nothing more than a political agenda. The general belief shared by the people who promote this theory is that co2 (Carbon Dioxide) produced by the burning of fossil fuels is creating too much greenhouse gas, which causes climate change. However there are a few issues with that theory, the first one is that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor the other 5% is mainly Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and a few other gasses, at the most Carbon Dioxide makes up only 3% of total amount of greenhouse gas. Human activity is only responsible for roughly 3-4% of total Carbon Dioxide, the rest naturally occurs. So at best the Carbon Dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels is only responsible for 0.12% of all greenhouse gas, not a great amount by any means.
Climate deniers use the pseudo-science of claiming water vapor is a greenhouse gas in order to reduce the overall percentage of CO2 present in the atmosphere as "greenhouse gasses", as well as claiming things such as carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, or that it's only a trace amount of CO2 that humans are contributing. Yes, water vapor has greenhouse properties, but what pseudo-science omits is that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at any given time and place can vary greatly in a matter of hours. Water can condense and come as rain, snow, etc, as well as changing humidity levels depending on weather conditions such as temperature changes. The actual greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, can stay in the atmosphere for years and does not have a rapid cycle like water vapor. Which makes all the numbers you just posted completely bogus.

Originally Posted by 00t444e View Post
The second problem is, in the thousands of years that the Earth has been here co2 levels have been higher than they have today ( we are at roughly 400 ppm), it was around 425 ppm when we were coming out of the last ice age, obviously with no human intervention, even during the 1800s it spiked to 480 ppm, yet they claim that it is at a record high that only began increasing in the 1960s due to burning fossil fuels. The third thing is co2 is very important for plant growth and studies show that increasing co2 levels would greatly benefit plant growth, and increase food production across the globe, yet those same people who are yelling "save the trees" are wanting to decrease co2 levels, again contradicting themselves. The majority of the of the studies to prove man made climate change is real come from the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the NAS ( National Acadamy of Science) both of which are government funded, so of course they are going get the results the government (or governments in the case of the UN) want them to so they can get their money. What this does is allow them to tax, and regulate pretty much anything they want to, Carbon Credits (one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of) are an example of this, but it makes it easy to see that in the grand scheme of things all it is about is money and control.
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age

https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/w...raise-co2.html
First, the recorded CO2 levels prior to this century are not has high as you claim. You resorted to another pseudo-science trick. In that blog from the Hockey Schtick, it claims to source peer-reviewed studies of something called "stomata based CO2 records".

To review, stomata CO2 records come from measuring the tiny pores on fossilized plant somatas, a key factor in a plant's intake of CO2. This is a relatively newer method of measuring ancient CO2 levels. However, there is a problem.... Even though this method exists, it's an INDIRECT method of measuring CO2 levels. In contrast, ice core samples (the preferred method used in the scientific community), are a DIRECT measurement of CO2 because the actual atmosphere is trapped in tiny air bubbles in the ice. It has been found that stomata based CO2 measurements are far more inconsistent and vary much more in range than ice core measurements, and therefore aren't typically used. Measuring the atmosphere directly will always yield more accurate and consistent results.

Next, pseudo-science claims that larger increases in CO2 will make plants grow. This ignores basic science and is laughable at best. Plants require much more than just CO2 to live (such as water, nutrients, sunlight, etc), and the claim itself is based on small scale controlled greenhouses with only certain types of plants. There are certain species of plants that will grow faster and much larger than normal with larger doses of CO2. However, there are also plants that do worse with larger CO2 concentrations, which pseudo-science omits. Plus that claim, for VERY obvious reasons, omits the damage that those levels of CO2 would do to the atmosphere and the amount of excessive heat would be trapped. The excessive heat would cause large surface areas of the earth to turn to desert and be unsustainable for plant life that is currently there now.

Lastly, your claim of government subsidization (and therefore influence) is grossly exaggerated. The majority of studies does not come from the IPCC or NAS. They simply publicize the findings. The actual studies come from elsewhere: IE universities, research labs, various agencies around the world.... all of which have varying fields in atmosphere, ocean, and geological sciences. There is no central control of climate studies, and hence the idea of government controlling all the studies is a hoax claim.

Your claims, as well as Overkill2, is exactly the same strategies as anti-vaxers use to back up their pseudo-science claims. Tons of misinformation designed to come off as believable to those gullible enough to not take time to do a bit of research themselves, and those willing to buy into the ideas of government conspiracies. Here's a bit of snark to end this post: Imagine 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by and handful of billionaires and oil companies. I hope you recognize the irony in that.
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: