| Author | Message | ||
     Rombi |
Well looks like the Wisconsin winter is starting already. Might be a few days here and there but I think the CR is going to be in my basement looking at me everytime I go to fridge down there. Might have to do that high bar swap to keep me busy. Anyone around Green Bay willing to go over the bike and show me some maintenence tips? Like oil changes etc.... Beer is on me, did I need to mention that? | ||
| Fmaxwell |
I won't be in that area, but I'll give a couple of quick tips: 1. Add a fuel stabilizer (i.e., Sta-Bil) and then... 2. Fill the tank with the highest octane fuel that's readily available. 93 or better, hopefully. The high octane is because fuel loses octane in storage as aromatic hydrocarbons evaporate off. By filling the tank, you minimize the air space where condensation can take place. After filling the tank... 3. Run the bike. You want to run it just long enough to get the treated fuel distributed throughout the FI system and to get the muffler hot enough to get rid of any condensation in it. 3. Change the oil. This gets rid of acid byproducts of combustion. These acids can etch bearings and journals. 4. If it's not too cold, wash and wax the bike. Work on getting the brake dust off of the wheels to prevent pitting. 5. Get some "fogging oil" from a boat store and use it to lightly coat the chromed fork legs (keep it off of the brake disk/caliper). This is a clingy oil that prevents rust and pitting. Let's hope for a short, mild winter. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Let's hope for a short, mild winter. Looks to be shaping up to be a long, cold, bitter winter. Somehow, I think come spring folks will be less interested in hearing about preventing global warming.  | ||
| Fmaxwell |
We liberals really screwed the pooch on naming it "global warming." If we had named it "climate destabilization" (based on its effects), we might have avoided a lot of confusion. People tend to be much less upset by warm weather than they are by hurricanes, tornadoes, and torrential rains. | ||
| Moto95 |
I'm just south of you in the Manitowoc area and it was 34 degrees this morning but finally sunny, something we haven't seen in over three weeks. It's gonna be a long winter for sure for the 1125R. | ||
| Cafefun |
Well I'm just over in Iowa so my weather is not much better. suppose to hit 60 today so we have a small ride planned. | ||
| Fmaxwell |
Great cold weather riding suit at a giveaway price of $60: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/guide-gear-s nowsuit.aspx?a=573601 Note that these ran VERY large when I ordered a year or two ago. I usually wear a large and this thing was a loose fit in a small. And it will shed goose feathers on your clothes, so don't plan to wear this over a $500 suit for a job interview. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
We liberals really screwed the pooch on naming it "global warming." If we had named it "climate destabilization" (based on its effects), we might have avoided a lot of confusion. Liberals? I thoughtscientists first observed climate change, not liberals naming a political tool based on severely questionable "science"........ When is Al Gore going to start debating the issue, anyway? R | ||
| Fmaxwell |
Liberals? I thought scientists first observed climate change, not liberals naming a political tool based on severely questionable "science"........ Even you called it "climate change." Unfortunately, liberals were not quick enough to adopt that term and, instead, latched onto the other popular press term of "global warming." We underestimated how many people do not understand the difference between local weather and global climate. But it wasn't based on "questionable" science at all. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that the research is solid, that global warming is occurring, and that it is primarily caused by man's activities. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686 http://www.seattlepi.com/local/302204_warming02.ht ml http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey .scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.rea l http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_surve y_apr23_08.html If you look into the "scientists" who still deny it, you will find that many of them are receiving huge grants from oil and coal companies -- sort of like the "Tobacco Institute" which released such gems as "SMOKING AND HEALTH 1964 - 1979 THE CONTINUING CONTROVERSY" in which they offered such wisdom as: "Indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with smoking may be both unfounded and dangerous -- unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards." Wow, that really sounds a whole lot like the denials of global warming by "scientists" receiving grants from the oil and coal industry, doesn't it? (Message edited by fmaxwell on November 01, 2009) | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
And the environmental movement doesn't have a political agenda at all.... O.K. And I did mean to put "climate change" in quotations..... oops! The problem is that there is NOT by any means a consensus among scientists. The panic driven, "We MUST do something before it's TOO LATE!" actions that just happen to be catastrophic to some industries are a simle byproduct. It's NOT a foregone conclusion. The data does NOT show that there is a cause and effect from anything man is doing. There is simply NOT the data to show that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Either the data would show something, or not. I agree interpretation of information can be skewed by bias, but that's what science is all about. Drawing conclusions from data, and being able to reproduce results. AAAAANNNNnnnnnd, (and this is most important) if you make a prediction, repeatedly, and it does NOT happen, then that SHOULD have some impact on ones credibility! All the things that have been predicted over the last 20 years have simply not happened!!! And there is no indication that they are! Global warming-- NO Sudden climate change---NO Global cooling----NO Carbon dioxide driven ice age---- NO None of this has come to pass, and there is no statistically significant data that shows any movement in that direction that cannot be fully explained by the random, chaotic nature of the weather on this planet. Rob R (Message edited by carbonbigfoot on November 01, 2009) | ||
| Ironjim |
Al Gore must be right about global warming. If not for him we wouldn't have this forum or the internet... | ||
| Indy_bueller |
And all the "scientists" like Algore who are pushing the "global warming" agenda are just poor, penniless paupers who don't get any government grants from their sponsors in Washington D.C. right? | ||
| Imonabuss |
Right, they are all just poor servants of the greater good...gag. | ||
| Fmaxwell |
Rob, You wrote "The problem is that there is NOT by any means a consensus among scientists." Then explain this: A 2009 poll performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 Earth scientists. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. A summary from the survey states that: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The study searched for the term "climate change" in the Institute for Scientific Information database of scientific papers. They found 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003 in refereed scientific journals. Of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that man-made climate change is real and is occurring. The other 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate (prehistoric climate), taking no position on current climate change. NONE of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion (that man-made climate change is not occurring). Are you aware of some group of climate change denying scientists working in seclusion in some hidden fortress? Don't just make loud, chest-pounding, all-caps proclamations. Provide some peer-reviewed, statistical and scientific research that supports your claims about there being a supposed lack of consensus. Global cooling? Let's not pass off 30+ year old popular press conjecture as scientific "predictions." From Wikipedia: Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century. (Message edited by fmaxwell on November 01, 2009) | ||
| Reducati |
i wonder who we can blame for the ice age..mmphhh...if the earth cooled w/o humans...maybe its going to swing the other way...just a thought | ||
| Fmaxwell |
"i wonder who we can blame for the ice age..mmphhh...if the earth cooled w/o humans...maybe its going to swing the other way...just a thought" I don't think it's matter of blaming anyone. But the people who could give you the best theories on how the ice ages happened are paleoclimatologists. But expecting an ice age to counteract man made global warming -- you'd have better odds of winning the lottery with one ticket. It's just far too slow a process. | ||
| Reducati |
my point is that if the earth cooled all by its lonesome, it only make sense that it would warm up as well...the only constant is change. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
So, it IS global warming. Not sudden climate change? I mean, if I read that correctly, then the majority of scientists think it is getting warmer. Right? Then why not call it global warming? R | ||
| Geforce |
"Green" is the new money making scheme. The worst part is that some individuals would have us all spend our life savings on buying the latest and greatest solar panels and wind generators to put on our house. Or painting our roofs white to reduce solar load. LMAO When the technology can catch up and the cost comes down. I'll be all about saving some money and trying something different. Until then, don't huff and puff and get all "Globally Righteous" when the very same people who are attempting to force this market on us are enjoying their lavish vehicles/energy consumption and carbon emissions on an hourly basis. Fear is a useful tool to inspire panic. Panic is a useful tool to attract money. Do I believe that we as a species negatively impact the climate...yes. Do I believe that we are entirely responsible for bringing about the severe weather patterns witnessed in the last few years...no. Do I believe people are trying to influence the "green" agenda only have the best intentions for our species and planet...no. Money is "green" too. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Shit, I didn't mean to turn this into a political discussion. Sorry OP. The problem is that only "global warming" fits Al Gore's graph. "Climate change" only came into vogue when temperatures trended downward bucking the original trend graph. | ||
| Geforce |
No biggy FT. We are expecting lots of ice in "MISSOURAH!" this year. I can't say that I am thrilled in the least... Any vendors sell spiked tires? hehe | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'll be in Joplin for Christmas Break. Family lives in Joplin, Springfield, Nevada, El Dorado, and Kansas City. Went to school in Bolivar. | ||
| Geforce |
I'm stationed up at FT LW. If you ever come up this way let me know. | ||
| Fmaxwell |
Geforce: "When the technology can catch up and the cost comes down. I'll be all about saving some money..." It's not all about your bank account, but I'm glad that you believe that man is at least partly responsible for the climate change. Statistically speaking, the severe weather is increasing in frequency and intensity. It's generally brought about by more energy (heat) in the oceans. Carbonbigfoot: "I mean, if I read that correctly, then the majority of scientists think it is getting warmer. Right?" Correct. They have measured it both on land-based instruments and from space with satellites. It's not just a hunch. "Then why not call it global warming?" Because ignorant people don't understand the difference between local weather and global climate. They think that if's been colder than usual for the last few months in their town, that fact disproves global warming. And, unfortunately, ignorant people vote, too. As to why one does not call it "sudden climate change," it's because the term "sudden," to most lay people, means something measured in seconds or even tenths of seconds (e.g. "he made a sudden stop"). They don't understand it at a geological time scale. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
You ever hook up with Diablobrian? He lives in Mexico, MO. FTLW, huh? You are smack dab between Jack and Squat. | ||
| Geforce |
I haven't met up with him before. D_Adams is up in STL and he's tweaking my factory exhaust. I have been down to the Joplin dealer a few times and really enjoyed the enthusiasm and knowledge those guys had for Buell. Been a while since I visited their neck of the woods. And you are right, there isn't much out here between Jack and Squat. However, the roads leading between the two are pretty nice for a Bueller. FM, I'm pretty confident the majority of Americans would prefer to use technology that not only saves us money, but helps preserve the environment. Again, the issue in my eyes isn't in convincing the "ignorant" masses that there is a problem. The problem IS money. And the closer we get to "carbon taxes" and "limited use emissions" and "fines/fees/regulations" the more people are going to resist. My brother in law works for intel and makes a very good living. He just spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on outfitting solar panels to his house. The cost of doing so greatly outweighs the money "saved" by having them. When tech becomes affordable to the everyday citizen you will have no problem convincing people to "go green" when the tech is putting "green" back into their wallets. For the average person, when you begin forcing compliance and start ripping into pocket books...shit hits the fan. You can best avoid this, and promote environmental friendliness by bringing tech to the little man at a good price and holding the people pushing the issues accountable for their OWN actions. Finding a politician who leads by example is a like finding a habitable planet in our galaxy. We think they exist, but no one has ever seen one before. Man wouldn't that be cool. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
And, unfortunately, ignorant people vote, too. Well, we have found common ground. O.K. I'm done. Peace? R | ||
| Fmaxwell |
Peace. | ||
| Rombi |
Does this mean I can start riding again in June vs. May? Cool. | ||
| Metalrabbit |
Fmaxwell, I don't believe you or any of your ilk,, you folks are just plain wacky and when your ilk is in power, your dangerous and deadly. You go hanging higher cost on energy, denying the use of some energy sources, In the middle of a Deep cold cycle! You may just be partly responsible for KILLING Hundreds of Thousands of People! You "think" your right, I "Know" you're WRONG!Whatever you try to do, To Fix ANYTHING, Will Have ZERO effect,, 'cept for killing and starving mankind. (Message edited by metalrabbit on November 02, 2009) |
