Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Videos from youtube you wish to share.

I'm not suggesting that regulatory overreach is the answer, or that the western world is entirely to blame - but the denial of overwhelming scientific consensus is a really damaging trait of recent politics and thought.

If the public instead of trusting the results of tens of thousands of studies, the opinions of the majority of climate & environmental research institutes and overwhelming scientific consensus, prefers the words of a flashy politician in the payroll of the Fossil fuel lobby then we probably deserve what's coming. I agree that clean air, water and food are important - but these aren't the only things that we have to worry about. In the wake of predicted temperature increases and extreme weather phenomena such as the uptick in the number of extreme storms recently - these things, as well as general national security concerns arising from them may become a real problem.

The responsibility is on everyone to make sure that their planet is habitable for their grandchildren's grandchildren. I'm worried and concerned for my descendent's futures with the reckless short-sighted self-interest of the politicians who hold power and sway over these sorts of issues.

As you may be able to tell from my positions here - I have no interest in party politics, but I have a lean towards governments providing services which the holders of power, and large corporations have proven they're not responsible enough for. In my opinion - the market and public demand will shift the adoption of technologies towards the clean side eventually - but I fear that it won't happen fast enough without government intervention, and we (according to the existing body of research on climate science) have damaged the natural order of things so much that even if all human activity ceased overnight - it would take decades, or even centuries for this to be reversed.

Anyway - I think this is off-topic enough for this thread - I want to apologise to everyone looking for interesting YT videos about how I've derailed this.
 





@ Immo : I just posted a video on this topic so you're covered and I want everyone to research and think, don't be bullied into accepting the political correctness that is ((( GLOBAL WARMING ))) because it's not as proven as some say, actually a lot of what people know is simply what people say and there is a lot of money and control wrapped up in this so there is much miss information to sift through.
 
RedCowboy said:
don't be bullied into accepting the political correctness that is ((( GLOBAL WARMING ))) because it's not as proven as some say
Click to expand...
I wasn't bullied into anything. I have formed my opinions and thoughts on this matter due to my own interpretation of the facts and data available. I might be young and generally inexperienced in life due to my age - but that doesn't preclude me from thinking critically of sources and performing detailed review of existing research.

Thanks anyway for the discussion - it's always a good thing to converse with those with differing opinions as it can broaden one's viewpoint significantly.
 
Please watch the videos I just watched, they explain very well what I had thought.

p.s. I didn't know how old you were or care, just looking for the truth and asking people to resist the peer pressure to follow the herd without looking at all the facts. :)


 
Ah that first documentary film... I watched that a few years ago actually - It raises some interesting points but in large - it's a sensationalised production which was highly criticised after it's release by trusted scientific institutions, and accused of misrepresenting the views of some of the scientists interviewed, as well as misrepresenting data collected by the likes of the British Antarctic Survey. It was also criticised for breaching the Ofcom (UK communications regulator) guidelines on political impartiality. If I remember correctly, a TV exec from Channel 4 made comments along the lines that the documentary was commissioned to give a platform for the views of a very small minority of scientists. I believe that strong agreement (consistently 95-98%) in the total body of research is well beyond strong enough to determine a valid consensus over fringe theories. Regardless, I appreciate you raising it, as it has been used frequently in support of your side of this discussion.

As for the second video - I've added it to my watch later queue as I'm unable to watch it now - but from the video's title, it sounds like it would be at home on the front cover of The Sun or The Daily Mail (trashy tabloids renowned for awful journalism & strong political bias). Will form my proper opinion on it after I've had a chance to watch it later.
 
Climate change driven by man made gasses expelled into the atmosphere was being taught when I was a young engineering student in the early 1970s. In the time between then and now the climate has shifted hotter, but because of the politics of companies that have a vested interest in continuing to pollute our atmosphere, there is now a debate over whether this is true or not. The fact of the matter is that most of the scientific community has not disregarded climate change as being driven by man, but are even more convinced than ever that we are already in deep $hit because nothing has changed for the good since the early 1970s, but has actually gotten worse. If you look for your science on social media, you will get these arguments that the climate is changing but is due to sun spot decline and other such nonsense. Sun spot decline in averaged times, but have had no appreciable effect on the climate at all. Saying that fewer sun spots are heralding an new ice age is nonsense to try to muddy the intellect of average people to push a political agenda.
 
Well paul, when the sun is shining on the other side of the earth tonight the outdoor temperature will be.....flipping cold, a whole lot colder than during the day when the sun is overhead.........now I am not a real official college educated, certificate bearing, white coat wearing bonafied scientist, but I can see a correlation between the sun and the outdoor temperature, and the part that matters to us here is that C02 follows the temperature, it does not precede it.

This is not to say that man burning fossil fuel hasn't caused some increase in GH gases but it's not the only source by any means and certainly not the biggest source.
 
Last edited:
You are confusing weather with climate. They are not the same thing. Of course the sun causes heat to build up on our planet, but well over 95% of scientists agree that green house gases are the major cause of climate change. It is without a doubt that the sun's heat is being trapped and causing these increases. With politicians who owe companies who dump these gases into our atmosphere, it is no wonder that there are these kinds of nonsense opinion editorials trying to persuade more of the populace of doubt that it isn't their dumping that has caused the greater impact of hurricanes in the past few decades or the melting of glaciers all over the planet. But, it is difficult to argue with the statistical evidence. It is outside the norm for other reasons for climate change.

The climate has been increasing faster each year as we continue to allow dumping of green house gases into the atmosphere. It is at the point where nothing else could account for such a drastic increase in the temperature of the planet decade after decade. It sure ain't sun spots.
 
Nothing else ? That's not true because we are only looking at a couple hundred years worth of data, the ice age comes around every 100K years so we don't know that and there is evidence to suggest otherwise, I can accept " could be " but will add likely not the only contributor and quite possibly of no real consequence.

But for you to say " Nothing else " can account is not accurate.
 
Hey GSS, I remember building a lot of SBC engines but I only built 1 Olds rocket 350 that I can think of and a 403, but I have owned a few cars with BOP 455's.

I have to admit that I loved the look of the big square exhaust ports on Olds heads but the pedestal rockers limited my bumpstick choice, now the 4 wheel drum brakes on my 1970 cutlass supreme were awful, I would run through the gears once then heat fade the smoking brakes, I never did much as far as hot rodding with any Buicks though, I had 1 big duce and a quarter with a 455 and a trans am with a 455, it's just that parts were abundant for chevy and cost less, all the BOP stuff was more expensive and choices were limited, but I flogged the dog squeeze out of them all.....BOO WHAAA
 
I drove through a wicked deep puddle in my 4 wheeled drummed 66 GS years and years ago and had absolutely "nothing" for brakes. I went through the puddle slow and was driving slow and everything lined up as far as no traffic but that was a horrible feeling.
Buick at the early 60's did use big 12 AL and steel lined drums that were the rage but heat dissipation or not, if the water is in the drum your not going stop..
That Olds 350 is a great motor and the W31 option Rally Cutlass was no joke. Those 350 heads are a nice upgrade when put on the big cubed 455's. I don't think there is a Olds big block and small block?? Am I right? yes the cubes are different but the same basic engine dimensions like the Pontiac 326 to 455..
I forgot, the Olds do or don't have shaft rocker arm setup?
I just got and get tired of all the car shows with just about every car having a BBC or SBC.
My Dad bought a new Wildcat in 1966 so like all young kids I levitated to Buicks because of that.. That's all and yup it's just so much cheaper to make power with Chevy's.
Hey Red, you do know about Buicks special Stage2 heads with 2 inch round exhaust ports and 11:1 pistons, cam etc.. program that was cut short in 1970 into production due to the unleaded low compression laws in 1971? They were available over the counter at dealers at least.
 
There were so many changes over the years, some older ohv engines with long forgotten displacement numbers had the rocker bar with adjusters which is a great design, pedestal rockers are just cheaper and were used in later models for that reason, today you can get a bolt on roller rocker set for an affordable price or just get a junkyard LS ;) heck I remember when chevy went to a roller lifter and one piece rear seal, that was the NEW but now the LS has dominated the hobby for it's buildability and low acquisition price also again the aftermarket is there in quantity and quality at a good price.

Anyway I know Pontiac had small journal and large journal blocks ...... olds had the same bore centers except for the 301 but used a tall deck for some, still you could swap heads between most all displacement unlike chevy, the chevy SB 400 had Siamese cylinders as that's where the block length ran out for the given stroke, the BB 396/402 had a wider bore center and much better heads, that was one good thing about the BOP engines, using a smaller combustion chamber head on a larger displacement engine to up the compression and the smaller displacement engines had better flowing heads, but today with all the aftermarket heads you can actually go too far, when the AFR heads hit they were so good that you could outflow the rest of your setup, reminds me of when kids would buy the biggest cam they could get and wonder why it sounded good but wouldn't pull for crap LOL Also today aftermarket Al heads are not as expensive, actually LS heads are good to 1000hp with some boost which is also a lot more affordable that it used to be.

Really if building NA the new LS architecture will go further and make more power, when boosting the all aluminum engines can see the heads start to lift when getting around 30 pounds boost or so, this can make the old cast iron and " Bowtie " blocks with the 6 bolt heads desirable again, it's just for those on a budget like many of us are, the junkyard LS already has a lot and better heads for cheap that will take you further than the old iron blocks and haeds.

Now the diesels are making big power on the strip, they are sturdy as hell and can hold 100 pounds of boost, also the beefed up automatics can stand the insane 4 digit torque numbers.....well if you go fast enough you are going to break stuff, but I never had that level of money to spend on it, but I still broke my share. :D


p.s. Yea there was some cool old stuff that was a lot cooler at the time, there was a turbo olds back in the early 60's IINM, it all goes around but technology improves, we just have to factor in the dynamic of the cost motive...actually everything is driven by fuel economy and low emissions, but that has given us 1st turn fuel injection starting that's reliable and a lot of improvements, now GM wants to build electric cars in china and although I love the gas, electric is going to be awesome, AWD electric is going to be super sick and stick too.
 
Last edited:
Wow you know your stuff.. That's why crank interchange on Pontiacs is tricky. The 421's 428's and 455's cranks can be swapped I think?? and the best combo comes out to 446ci.??
The best Olds 400's were the early 65's to 67. They tried to save cash in 68 and 69 and used the 455 crank with a really small bore to make a troubled 400 442 motor.
Believe it or not the 454LS6 did not put out 450hp unless headers were run and the factory exhaust manifold were awful. Square port heads had some issues down low at up to 400 lift but what a great motor. Still for a street car like you had mentioned before the good peanut ports heads can do big power..
Not to many car guys around me lately and the ones I do talk will say something stupid like "I had a Stage3 Buick with triple dueces"??
Not knocking them personally but don't make stuff up;)
Enjoy your day Red:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top