Sure it is and you should. Noone can forecast the weather this weekend accurately, let alone 50 years from now. There is no statistically significant data indicating temperatures are rising. There is no correlation between ice core CO2 data and climate change and less than a 50% correlation with tree ring data. Climatgate proved that global warming science is all faked. Even if CO2 was a greenhouse gas, and it isn't, humans only produce about 3% of the total and can only reduce a small percentage of that so no matter how you look at it, it's a futile waste of time and money.....OK, I'm off to burn a bunch of fossil fuel!

 

 

The USA just approved E15

 

See the article below;
http://www.livescience.com/19414-oce...135-years.html

One point for you, ronnie. One point for climate change.
It seems to me that the 135 years of data show heating of the planet, pretty undeniably. Problem is that it contradicts what the greenhouse science suggests; eg that warming is resulting from the most resent 'explosion' in the use of fossil fuels. It can't be the case.

If the planet is warming, mark my words, it's a result of deforestation and urban sprawl.

 

I'm not going to debate whether or not climate change is solely attributable to mankind's activities in the last 50 years as I don't really know what the answer is.

What get's me is the fact that the vast majority of the greenies will not even allow for a reasonable debate and questioning of their message.

The governments have figured this out. So when the BC government introduced a "carbon tax" they knew there would be little opposition because if you were to publicly question this you were labeled as being politically incorrect and really how dare you question something that is good for the environment.

This is what pisses me off the most.

You are not allow to even question the idea of global warming you must take it as fact.

Isn't the advancement of science all a result of questioning?

If we were not allow to question any given statement then we would probably all still believe the earth is flat.

 

If the planet is warming that means it's warmer outside and we just had winter. Hmmnn. Doesn't matter though. We are going to burn through oil regardless.

 

Please see link ... http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...essd06oct97_1/


Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced




First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.

Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.



Another Link ---> http://http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my...-alarmism.html

 

Yup and the key determinant of weather and climate is solar activity.

 

http://pure-gas.org/

 

On the other hand,there seems to be no harm in sticking to ethanol-free gas in modern cars. Better to be cautious , and the Shell station is close to where I live in any case.

 

I use shell v power in all my cars. Period.

 

We purchased a new boat a couple of years back, the front page of the owners package in large print "warranty void with use of fuel containing Ethanol" also a tag on the MerCruiser motor.

 

seeing threads with jaaks posts always tugs on my heart strings a little.

Hope you are resting in peace Jaak !! still thinking of you ..

 

I'd like to know what the biggest Porsche community in the North America does... cause there are only 18 stations in California that are ethanol free, according to pure-gas.org as ethanol is mandated in all gasoline stations. Sure if your fuel system is not made for ethanol or you're storing that car, go Shell 91.

But if you're running 91 instead of 93, you're running retarded timing, less power and a hotter engine. Again more trade offs. I haven't heard of any watercooled engines failing due to ethanol, but heat is a different story. Which is why a 3rd radiator is an upgrade I see on M97s, and the 9A1's biggest change from 997.2 to 991 was better cooling.

For me its more about running the car as it was intended, with the right fluids. If its made for 93, use 93 octane.

 

I'm sorry but why do you think your car runs hotter on 91? I used to use 93 with ethanol and switched to shell 91. I see zero difference in temp. Ethanol absorbs water and degrades rubber. Anyway both are available so use whatever floats your boat.