Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Forums Last 7 Days Clear All
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 11:43 AM
    McGuirja, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 19 view(s)
  • Scorpion's Avatar
    Today, 11:18 AM
    1889 replies | 120360 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 11:02 AM
    Welcome Jc1332, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 19 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 11:00 AM
    Hey Type-rt: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 14 view(s)
  • Kidrobot's Avatar
    Today, 10:37 AM
    Call me crazy but I'd say it goes far beyond that. All fanatical environmentalism, along with many other dubious 'for your own good' policies, are a front for things like Agenda 21 and the Georgia Guidestones.
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • mjmarovi's Avatar
    Today, 10:31 AM
    Yeah, pretty much right on all of them, accept I disagree that steps will have to be taken to mitigate these changes. I don't know that they have to be. I really disagree with anyone at this point who thinks us humans are to blame. Larger climate changes have been recorded prior to the industrial revolution when our carbon footprint was virtually nonexistent. Any many many more much more drastic climate changes are believed to have happened in the past thousands of years, so why is it now all of a sudden us causing it? Well...so that people like Al Gore can get rich. That's why. PERIOD.
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • mjmarovi's Avatar
    Today, 10:28 AM
    TBH you did come off that way, and I just really didn't want to hear anything about the environment being mentioned in the same sentence or even conversation with motorsports PERIOD; let alone F1. That's all. Honestly the biggest disappointment for me is that I've never been able to go to a F1 race yet in my life, and one reason I wanted to go was to experience the sounds, and now that I can't do that it fucking sucks...might as well watch from home now as it's only visual now and that's a better from home anyway.
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • 135pats's Avatar
    Today, 10:10 AM
    This thread'll be fun. My thoughts on global warming/climate change are below 1. There seems to be a broad scientific consensus that the climate is changing at a more rapid rate than in the past. 2. There seems to be a broad scientific consensus that human behavior has had a measurable effect on this change. There does seem to be a broad causal link. 3. Steps will likely have to be taken to mitigate these changes, many of which are harmful 4. There is NOT a broad scientific consensus that human's are the overwhelming cause for these changes 5. There is NOT a broad scientific consensus that these changes will be disastrous and life altering in the next 50-100 years. 6. There is NOT a logical reason for the United States to bear the overwhelming cost burden of mitigating said changes, as is proposed in almost all UN models and approaches. OK back to brunch.
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • DavidV's Avatar
    Today, 10:01 AM
    Djeez man, where did I let you believe I am a global warming fanatic? I was just stating how non petrol heads look at the sport. I don't care about it that much at all. I do not drive a Prius nor am I planning to buy one. You are totally missing all the points I was talking about.
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • mjmarovi's Avatar
    Today, 09:32 AM
    Here's an additional list of other scientists who have signed said petition mentioned above or have their own publications arguing the validity of global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming DavidV
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • mjmarovi's Avatar
    Today, 09:29 AM
    Link to original page: http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/ A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax by Alan Caruba March 31, 2014 “It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.There is no scientific support for the UN theory.CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.“By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception. For more info on who Alan Caruba is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Caruba
    6 replies | 158 view(s)
  • mjmarovi's Avatar
    Today, 09:20 AM
    Like any other treehugger David you'd rather deviate from the point I made and try to berate me for not knowing the ins and outs of F1 or attempt to make me feel bad for not feeling sympathy for our planet and the carbon footprint. Global sport? Yeah...no shit it's global...when did I ever say otherwise? Just like every other leftwing nutjob you want to put words into someone's mouth to make yourself sound better and strengthen your argument. So F1 should lessen it's carbon footprint to set an example to others about mother earth and the attempt to lessen the effects of a theoretical global warming? Are you sure you're DavidV or Al Gore? I think I'll go buy a catless exhaust system for my truck now just because you've motivated me to do so. After all, Formula 1 is saving more fuel then I'd be using anyway. haha I am clearly entitled to my opinion on the new sound of the engines. You can't tell me I'm wrong for that. I wasn't aware the fuel limitation came from the race teams and not the FIA, not sure I believe that TBH, but it doesn't really matter who made the decision, us fans certainly did NOT, therefore it would be better racing IMO if the teams didn't have to worry about fuel consumption, it's unsettling to hear a over the radio "we're out of fuel so you'll have to take it a bit easy to finish" seriously?
    16 replies | 712 view(s)
  • Group.america's Avatar
    Today, 09:08 AM
    Classic phone call message from my Mum (Adelaide, Australia) last night - Context = My missus is Jewish nd her Mum is a holocaust survivor "Hi, Andrew, it's your Mum, I hope you have a nice Easter Sunday. I am not sure when the Jews celebrate Easter but please say hi Leslie and her family"
    3007 replies | 170752 view(s)
  • DavidV's Avatar
    Today, 08:37 AM
    He's not makin excuses for the sound at al. He states you get the fuck on with your life and get used to it. The carbon footprint was a hint to the responsibility of F1 as a global sport (truly global, like all around the world. Not like, we alre the only country playing this sport, so let's call it World series). Anyway These new engines are faster, more torque and more fun to drive according to the drivers Engine manufacturers Renault and Mercedes threated Formula One to leave if the engines were not more related to the engines they need for development. The manufacturers also self set the 100L/hour fuel limit to reduce the power made by the engine. Not the FIA. The 2.4L V8 was not going anywhere anymore. Development had stopped 2 years ago and the only thing challenging about it was to restrict the amount of engines used per year. Did you ever pay attention the last 2 seasons AT ALL?? Improve racing??? Have you watched a single race last year? I bet not. Have you watched any of the last 4 races? I honestly can not believe how you can say such a strange and unfunded thing after the last race in Bahrain, where there was more close racing than any race in at least 3 years. So your span of attention is <8 minutes clearly. And you come with a clip of Luca Di Montezemolo responding to the disqualification of Ricciardo at Melbourne, and the remarks of Vettel after his engine blew. Strange. And you managed to sling both your 2 least favorite people into your response (who both have absolutely nothing to do with the matter). You must feel really good. The true issue here is, how is a F1 engine supposed to sound? In the 80s that was either a V8 or a turbo engine, which were both quite loud I can tell you first hand. In the early 90s that was a V8, V10 or V12, all loud, but with different pitching. From 1996 they were V10s, whichadmit sounded awesome, especially when they reached 19000 rpm in 2005. Were you on the barricades when they were banned in 2006 and replaced by the V8s? A lot of people were complaining then, too. Were you on the barricades when the rpm was restricted from 19000 to 18000 in 2009? A lot of people were. And that brings us to the present. Why are you complaining now when this new engine pack has until now brought us nothing but good racing? An F1 engine sounds like an F1 engine due to regulations. There is nothing artificial about it, nor should there be. It is not a road car with speakers. It is all about performance. Yes, the precharged turbo muffles the exhaust tune. Get over it. The engines are much more torque, giving much more spectacle. So the on board flow restrictions are difficult to comprehend for the public, Luca stated. Really? They are shown in clear graphs during the race, and yes, they are monitored by the FIA. Everybody complies to these rules. They were unanimously accepted at the beginning of the season by every team. Fuel limits were in formula 1 all along. The V8's had a 160kg limit when refueling was banned, these cars have a 100kg limit. And they are coping quite well. No more fuel saving laps, unable to attack due to the amount of fuel onboard. That all has gone. How can you be against that? Maybe a too long an article for you to read, but worth reading non the less, this article from Jonh Leichester. Could be too green for you, though... “As Earth’s atmosphere warms alarmingly and fills with heat-trapping gases, and the writing on the wall – “People, we’re in trouble!” – looms ever larger, Formula One has steadily become a guilty pleasure, the motorsport equivalent of blue whale burger or wearing panda fur. All that precious fuel going up in smoke, speed, and outrageous noise. Unsustainable and increasingly unjustifiable. So F1 deserves a pat on the back for now doing its little bit for the planet. Let’s not kid ourselves: Strapping drivers into combustion engines can never be a “green” sport. Polar bears on retreating ice sheets shouldn’t dance with joy -”We’re saved!” – simply because F1 downgraded this season from monster 2.4-liter, V8 engines to somewhat less viciously thirsty 1.6-liter, V6 turbo hybrid engines. But it is something. More than that, it recognizes that if we are to have much of a collective future, then everyone must make and accept compromises, eke out and protect resources and learn to do more with less. To cover a meager 190 miles, the length of all F1 races except the shorter Monaco Grand Prix, the V8s guzzled around 50 gallons of fuel – sometimes a bit more, sometimes less, depending on the track and conditions. That was just on race day. Now add practice and qualifying sessions, and multiply all this by 19 races a season, for a truly staggering fuel bill. In the real world, a midsize Toyota Prius hybrid might cover about 2,500 miles on those same 50 gallons, almost enough to cross the United States from Washington DC to Los Angeles, according to fuel economy figures for that model from the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency. F1 wouldn’t be F1 without excess. Fans worldwide wouldn’t tune in for World Champion Sebastian Vettel driving a Prius. F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone got fabulously rich with the sales pitch of bigger, faster, costlier, noisier equals vroooom. “Rush,” director Ron Howard’s glorification of 1976 world champion James Hunt has the notorious bad boy of F1 mouth-rinsing with champagne and puffing on an illegal-looking cigarette before races in his early Formula Three days. Swap the risk and glamour of F1 for quiet-as-a-mouse electric engines and showers of dandelion tea on the podium and you can be sure that petrol-heads would walk away. But as road cars become more fuel efficient, with electric and hybrid-engine technology making increasing inroads, F1 needed to reconnect with its time or risk becoming an anachronism, racing on regardless the costs to the environment. This season’s switch to fantastically complex hybrid engines puts F1 back ahead of the technological curve. That is exactly where the sport must be to retain fans and stay relevant in today’s energy-challenged world. The engines still generate most of their power from burning fuel but also recuperate and reuse far more energy from braking and exhaust gases than the previous V8 cars and their KERS energy-recovery systems. New rules slash by about one-third the amount of fuel that teams use in the cars and also limit the rate at which they burn it. Again, that doesn’t make them anywhere near green. The 100-kilogram-per-race allotment of fuel would still get a Prius from Paris to Moscow. But at least F1 can now argue that it is going in the right direction. If improvements in fuel economy, engine technology, energy recovery and hybrid-power know-how also bleed over into future road cars, F1 will be able to stick that feather in its cap, too. Critics who loved the fiery crackle of throaty V8s complain that the new engines are too quiet. But that nostalgia over-plays the supposed link between engine noise and the appeal of F1. The V6s certainly sound different, with a top-end squeal like a dentist’s drill. That will take getting used to. Ultimately, however, what makes F1 watchable – or not – isn’t noise but the quality and closeness of the racing. V8 races may have been loud. But many of them were boring, too. Also misleading is the argument that F1 drivers shouldn’t need to economize fuel or tires and instead should be able to race flat-out from first lap to last. Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo is in this camp – itself a good indicator of how poorly his team has adapted to the new regime. But not every race needs non-stop wheel-to-wheel action to be interesting. In fact, you’d be naive and sorely disappointed if you expect that. The unfolding chess game during races of teams balancing the need for speed with the need to make tires and fuel last, the strategies they employ and adapt to squeeze the most out of those resources, make F1 a more cerebral sport. Fuel economy isn’t beside the point – for F1 or for any of us. It is the point. It must be.
    16 replies | 712 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 08:16 AM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum RYECV.
    0 replies | 24 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 07:08 AM
    Smb123, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 26 view(s)
  • RNS-11Z's Avatar
    Today, 07:04 AM
    RNS-11Z replied to a thread LS2 rx8 build in Aus in Asian Cars
    Hi sticky passnger header completed, work has begun on the drivers side. By the end of next week the headers should be done. Also we are hoping to make around 450rwhp.
    4 replies | 279 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 06:36 AM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum OGalea.
    0 replies | 30 view(s)
More Activity