I believe the government's data shouldn't be ignored based on its cold weather operation recommendation. In North Dakota where the monthly average temperature is -2F, I owned and used daily a 1996 Mecury Sable for 13 years and ran it to 250k mi (I then sold the car in working condition). I did not employ any kind of warm-up procedure during those 13 years even on the coldest of days. I never replaced any engine components, nor have I on any of the other 6 vehicles I have owned in ND. "Warming the engine" is no longer a required procedure for engine longevity and spews more noxious gases into our atmosphere than we need.

BTW, drive any newish automobile and you'll find that the temperature gauge indicates nothing other than that your engine's not on fire.

You raise interesting points, but as you say, you've only speculated. If you had done a Google search for "shutting off engine," you would have found http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html provided to us by the state in which all things cause cancer CA and where emissions laws like those in North Dakota, where I'm from, might as well be viewed as permissive of pouring-gasoline-on-the-ground-and-lighting-it-aflame (no one checks our vehicle emissions). Long story short, CA found that 10 seconds is all it takes to get a return on your investment. The article also notes that not all gas is burned at idle. This is true and causes a non-stoichiometric reaction producing extra CO and unburned hydrocarbons. So apart from the decreased gasoline consumption, you spew out less gas too! As a side note, I do this routinely and don't find it a great inconvenience.

I agree. This was certainly a brute force attack.

It seems that you're using the word "average" to legitimize your use of a stereotype. The truth is, no "egotistical macho jackoff" poll has ever been staged to determine if the "average" soldier is an "egotistical macho jackoff." You really have no clue what the "average" soldier is like. I actually know a plethora of really intelligent, selfless soldiers whose moral standards are much above this kind of behavior. While I agree entirely that there is no place for this behavior in imprisonment, I am quite surprised by it.

In regard to the reply which says

I am again in agreement but there is no need to generalize soldiers as people who have very low moral standards. They simply generally aren't.

I find it quite funny that the writer of the blog was in fact the person who placed the false information. He was just testing everyone and his results supported his hypothesis.

I'm not a big fan of IP, but you don't get special privileges to infringe on it just because you're a NPO trying to "make the world a better place."