Completely unrelated discussion off-topic on global warming

The scam of global warming shouldn't be political. Those who benefit from it have politicized it...and sent out its legion of whipped up adherents to claim that their proofless gospel should not be challenged...So due to these *&^%^** we all suffer, we pay "gas guzzler" taxes on top of climate fiction taxes, and every other BS tax or regulation they can tack on to satisfy the narrative and act like they are our saviors...Its offensive, and deeply so.

addle:

To say climate change is not happening is erroneous. To say man is causing it is erroneous. Nature is the cause. Explain how there were glaciers in the US Midwest well before man was here?

Climate change is real. Man causing it is not. One volcano puts out more CO2 than man can in a 1,000 years. The whole carbon footprint BS can f-off.

I assure you I am as far from a tree hugger as you can get but our climate does change on it's own without our input. Natural cycle. Earth's wobble. Orbit around the sun is more elliptical than oval causing our distance from the sun to change thus causing changes in our surface temperatures.

So.... Back to the OP, the article even touches on the power gain of tunning.
"Power is cheaper and easier to get and easier to tune than ever before. (The alleged efficiency gains are another story.) " I believe this is another reason FI is taking over. It is much easier to make power wth FI. No argument there.

MulhollandMonster said:

Killed by the fiction of global warming and its evangelical band of political hucksters.

Click to expand...

"A common form, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?, is a retort to an irrelevant suggestion. This facetious usage implies that the topic under discussion might as well be the price of tea in China for all the relevance the speaker's suggestion bears on it."

Houston Kid said:

To say climate change is not happening is erroneous. To say man is causing it is erroneous. Nature is the cause. Explain how there were glaciers in the US Midwest well before man was here?

Climate change is real. Man causing it is not. One volcano puts out more CO2 than man can in a 1,000 years. The whole carbon footprint BS can f-off.

I assure you I am as far from a tree hugger as you can get but our climate does change on it's own without our input. Natural cycle. Earth's wobble. Orbit around the sun is more elliptical than oval causing our distance from the sun to change thus causing changes in our surface temperatures.

Click to expand...

+1

Houston Kid said:

To say climate change is not happening is erroneous. To say man is causing it is erroneous. Nature is the cause. Explain how there were glaciers in the US Midwest well before man was here?

Climate change is real. Man causing it is not. One volcano puts out more CO2 than man can in a 1,000 years. The whole carbon footprint BS can f-off.

I assure you I am as far from a tree hugger as you can get but our climate does change on it's own without our input. Natural cycle. Earth's wobble. Orbit around the sun is more elliptical than oval causing our distance from the sun to change thus causing changes in our surface temperatures.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But the term "climate change" has been hijacked to mean "CO2 created and without doubt apocalyptic"...That is what those who have politicized it have done...Nobody reasonable is arguing the climate never changes (although seems to be inferred by the religious zealots of the church of climate change)...Who that denies man is the cause of climate change are saying the climate does not change? Not one...I don't understand how that gets confused...Climate changes, always has, always will, and Earth records shows a warm earth generates growth, not death...Vegetation loves CO2, which produce O2...I would bet money the computer models used to create the fictional apocalypse don't even factor in CO2 conversion to O2, nor do they factor in the fact that CO2 is HEAVIER than air, so tends not to float around Earth, but rather to sink to Earth where the plant life utilizes and converts it.

I work for an oil company. Even we acknowledge climate change is in effect. Our corporate position is not that it doesn't exist only there is insufficient evidence that it's caused by human activity.

Which it is but it doesn't help our lobby to go around admitting to things like that. Suppress so we can profit as long as we can until we have to fund remediation. It's a simple formula we've been doing it for years.

The Butterfly Effect as applied to weather forecasting software:

...taken more broadly, the butterfly effect is a way of describing how, unless all factors can be accounted for, large systems like the weather remain IMPOSSIBLE to predict with total accuracy because there are too many unknown variables to track.

Click to expand...

Unless and until a computer program and its human engineers can be rendered perfect and holy, there is no scientific basis for man-made global warming. It is, at best, a hypothesis. Doesn't even meet the requirements of scientific theory.

High-revving NA motors rock.

There are high-revving awesome turbo motors (Ferrari 488 anyone?!). It's all about what the engine is designed to do.

As a PhD scientist, troll is troll and everything regarding scientific consensus above evinces a deep and troubling misunderstanding. Scientific consensus was never really "earth is flat;" that pre-dated the scientific method, which disproved it. Scientific inquiry and study shifts consensus over time by disproving and throwing away worse ideas and explanations in favor of better ones. The current consensus is, by definition, the best we know right now. Consensus about how cancer works has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. It will probably change again in the next 15 years. Does that mean you would refuse the bes treatment available today if your wife had breast cancer?

If not, then you need to accept the current best models for global warming, and the direct EVIDENCE of anthropogenic causes, which pull from geologic records, oceanic chemistry shifts and surface-water pH changes, and direct measurement of the balance of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the atmosphere that change as the balance of CO2 sourced from fossil fuels increases.

If there is any part of that last paragraph that doesn't make sense to you, you aren't really qualified to have an opinion on the topic. That's okay; it's not an insult. I'm not qualified to have an opinion about which CNC mills are better or the best way to manufacture the fancy cylinder liners in our gas-guzzling, super-awesome engines, and your oncologist is likely not qualified to have an opinion about the relative quality of the plumbing fittings in your house.

Expertise is valuable. Respect it and learn from it in ALL areas of life.

Edited to add: I recommend reading "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert. She is an excellent lay-person author writing on scientific topics with great clarity.

FranzVonHoffer said:

I work for an oil company. Even we acknowledge climate change is in effect. Our corporate position is not that it doesn't exist only there is insufficient evidence that it's caused by human activity.

Which it is but it doesn't help our lobby to go around admitting to things like that. Suppress so we can profit as long as we can until we have to fund remediation. It's a simple formula we've been doing it for years.

Click to expand...

That is called pandering. Its to get the "OIL is evil!" crusaders to put down their pitch forks...Again, who is arguing that the climate does not change?...Nobody.

oldbmwfan said:

If not, then you need to accept the current best models for global warming, and the direct EVIDENCE of anthropogenic causes, which pull from geologic records, oceanic chemistry shifts and surface-water pH changes, and direct measurement of the balance of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the atmosphere that change as the balance of CO2 sourced from fossil fuels increases.

Click to expand...

None of these things prove anything. Testable hypotheses generate sound theory. Let me know when it can be tested and proven that the climate would not have changed if we did not start producing huge quantities of CO2...It'll never be anything more than a hypothesis, because it is completely unprovable.

In order to prove it you would have to either have historical record of man-created climate change, or you would have to be able to completely stop man generated CO2 for an equal amount of years that we have been generating CO2 to see if there was any effect (and you would have to assure that no other variables were at work to drive climate change)...The sun is what causes climate change...That is settled science.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Zitrosounds said:

So.... Back to the OP, the article even touches on the power gain of tunning.
"Power is cheaper and easier to get and easier to tune than ever before. (The alleged efficiency gains are another story.) " I believe this is another reason TO is taking over. It is much easier to make power wth FI. No argument there.

Click to expand...

Won't argue it either. 6lbs of boost with a GT350 equating to 600+ RWHP.

I'm picking up a new daily, Focus ST and I can't wait to get almost the same gas mileage as my '07 Civic and also have twice the power when I want. But I'll stick to N/A on my 350.

MulhollandMonster said:

That is called pandering. Its to get the "OIL is evil!" crusaders to put down their pitch forks...Again, who is arguing that the climate does not change?...Nobody.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty simplistic look at it. Not only do we always regulate and manage our emissions because of climate change concerns we also have an alternative energy business unit that works to orient our technology to how the energy markets will be changing in the coming years because of... climate change.

nastang87xx said:

Won't argue it either. 6lbs of boost with a GT350 equating to 600+ RWHP.

I'm picking up a new daily, Focus ST and I can't wait to get almost the same gas mileage as my '07 Civic and also have twice the power when I want. But I'll stick to N/A on my 350.

Click to expand...

I'm interested to hear how you like the ST. I was halfway considering an RS but it's a bit overkill, the ST makes more sense, but wasn't sure if I'd be starved for power.