Stealing a Tesla in 30 seconds

[Cheeks]

If someone steals my truck in the front of the house, I get to hear the large carbon emitting engine fire up and alert me and the neighbors.   

Video of two guys using a relay device to trick a TESLA into thinking they have the key....30 seconds and gone in all the quietness the Tesla offers.


https://www.thedrive.com/news/29517/watch-car-thieves-steal-a-tesla-model-s-in-under-30-seconds-using-a-relay-device

[buckchuckler]

If someone steals my truck in the front of the house, I get to hear the large carbon emitting engine fire up and alert me and the neighbors.  

Video of two guys using a relay device to trick a TESLA into thinking they have the key....30 seconds and gone in all the quietness the Tesla offers.


https://www.thedrive.com/news/29517/watch-car-thieves-steal-a-tesla-model-s-in-under-30-seconds-using-a-relay-device

Huh, that must be why gas/diesel vehicles are never stolen. 

[Cheeks]

Huh, that must be why gas/diesel vehicles are never stolen. 

Plenty are stolen, but they will think twice with mine and the neighbor’s...his diesel you ca hear 15 houses down.

[🏀]

When celebrating obnoxiousness as a security system is a good humble brag...

[Cheeks]

When celebrating obnoxiousness as a security system is a good humble brag...

When thinking gay jokes are funny in 2019.....is a good humble brag....

[🏀]

When thinking gay jokes are funny in 2019.....is a good humble brag....

It’s a gay joke? The skit is widely heralded as one of SNL’s first positive gay sketches, but I’ll let you Google that.

[Hards Alumni]

If someone steals my truck in the front of the house, I get to hear the large carbon emitting engine fire up and alert me and the neighbors.   

Video of two guys using a relay device to trick a TESLA into thinking they have the key....30 seconds and gone in all the quietness the Tesla offers.


https://www.thedrive.com/news/29517/watch-car-thieves-steal-a-tesla-model-s-in-under-30-seconds-using-a-relay-device

Wow that's amazing, I bet they got really far with it too!

Better not switch to electric cars based solely on this!

/s

But for real, you still climate change denying these days?

[Cheeks]

Wow that's amazing, I bet they got really far with it too!

Better not switch to electric cars based solely on this!

/s

But for real, you still climate change denying these days?

I never denied climate changing, it has always changed and always will regardless if man is here or not.  It always changes.

Good to see hockey stick Michael Mann lose his court case this week in the Canadian Supreme Court because he refused to turn over his data.  So strange that these guys with their models and data refuse to let others review their work....hmmm.   But yes, climate is always changing and that will never stop.  Jus like it is changing on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Etc, etc....crazy how, that works.   That’s why it is so much fun to read history of places on earth that went through ice ages, heat patterns, and then something totally different now only to have it change again in the future..  Life and climate is complex stuff, I’m glad I can emit carbon which plants need to live and not have huge car batteries left to destroy the environment later.  My solar panels are working great to save me money, too.

[Cheeks]

You haven’t become WOKE yet.  Straight guys playing gay characters no longer meets the criteria of allowable humor here in the Hollywood homeland.  Thus, no longer humorous....Gay Schmitt in 2019 no golo.

Personally, I found it then and now, hilarious...as did my gay friends....but they aren’t as woke and the most wokeness who set the rules these days.

[Hards Alumni]

I never denied climate changing, it has always changed and always will regardless if man is here or not.  It always changes.

Good to see hockey stick Michael Mann lose his court case this week in the Canadian Supreme Court because he refused to turn over his data.  So strange that these guys with their models and data refuse to let others review their work....hmmm.   But yes, climate is always changing and that will never stop.  Jus like it is changing on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Etc, etc....crazy how, that works.   That’s why it is so much fun to read history of places on earth that went through ice ages, heat patterns, and then something totally different now only to have it change again in the future..  Life and climate is complex stuff, I’m glad I can emit carbon which plants need to live and not have huge car batteries left to destroy the environment later.  My solar panels are working great to save me money, too.

Head in the sand, as always.

[TallTitan34]

Cheeks is Chicos turned up to 100.

Starting to think this is a parody account and not actually Chicos.

[Coleman]

Horses are loud too...guess we should go back to those

[Jon]

[Cheeks]

Head in the sand, as always.

Michael Mann (hockey stick graph fame) lost his libel case to Dr. Ball last week, no head in the sand...Mann refused to turn over the data as has been the case with a number of these guys...it’s as if they are worried about something. 

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

I personally think climate has always changed and always will.  I find it odd that some of these scientists and organizations don’t turn their data over for complete analysis.

[Jon]

Horses are loud too...guess we should go back to those

What about horse-faced women?

[Hards Alumni]

Michael Mann (hockey stick graph fame) lost his libel case to Dr. Ball last week, no head in the sand...Mann refused to turn over the data as has been the case with a number of these guys...it’s as if they are worried about something. 

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

I personally think climate has always changed and always will.  I find it odd that some of these scientists and organizations don’t turn their data over for complete analysis.

Let me guess, you're also willing to fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and claim that the earth is flat.

Must be some grand conspiracy as well?

God, you're dense.

[Cheeks]

Let me guess, you're also willing to fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and claim that the earth is flat.

Must be some grand conspiracy as well?

God, you're dense.

I’m curious why he risked losing his case, which he did, along with others that refuse to let their data be reviewed.  I mean, if it is such a slam dunk and overwhelming, why not release it?  What is concern?  What’s to hide.  Some great articles on why by PhDs at MIT, UVA, UCLA, etc, but of course their views don’t count. 

In all seriousness Hards, why not blow any skepticism out of the water entirely and open up the data to all?  Weird. 

I was going to post in the grievances thread, but it is closed.  I would also add why is it when it is hot, one side cannot wait to talk about climate change or global warming in context of the heat, but when it is really cold and one makes the same argument the immediate response is “weather is not climate”.....apparently different set of rules exist.  LOL.    But yes, climate is changing...always has and always will.  I’m pretty sure you will find overwhelming scientific evidence for that.  I’m just personally excited we aren’t under water where we live as some of the overwhelming scientific evidence folks said we would be by 2017...guess their data was flawed and needed some adjustments that nobody is allowed to look at except for those they choose.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I feel like I'm going to regret asking this but hear I go...

You say that climate is always changing, which is true. Do you also believe that humans have had zero negative impact on that?

[Cheeks]

I feel like I'm going to regret asking this but hear I go...

You say that climate is always changing, which is true. Do you also believe that humans have had zero negative impact on that?

I feel humans have impact and have said that for many years.

 What i don’t believe is the changes people want to make will do anything material and they have often admitted as much....instead they are in mentality of “we just have to do something to make me feel better about doing something”.  Nor do I think it is a good idea to make gloom and doom predictions with timelines that are wildly absurd and when they fail to occur, only hampers their argument even further.  Or the absolute hypocrisy of cap and trade offsets is one of the most glorious F You scams I have ever seen.  It’s as if someone can go murder someone and then claim all is good because I fathered a child as a replacement offset....nothing to see here.  Yup, I can burn emit as much carbon as I want as long as I offset it elsewhere with a donation or perceived eco savings.  It’s absurd. 

And the data.....why won’t they release the data?  Hmm.  If it is such a slam dunk, release it all, including the modeling methodologies, which these refuse to do.  If you control the narrative, control the recipe, you can have it say whatever you want.  But yes, humans have an impact.  Guess what, no humans on other planets, their climates changing too....despite no humans.  Aside from humans, so do animals, so does the Sun, so do many things.

[Hards Alumni]

I feel humans have impact and have said that for many years.

 What i don’t believe is the changes people want to make will do anything material and they have often admitted as much....instead they are in mentality of “we just have to do something to make me feel better about doing something”.  Nor do I think it is a good idea to make gloom and doom predictions with timelines that are wildly absurd and when they fail to occur, only hampers their argument even further.  Or the absolute hypocrisy of cap and trade offsets is one of the most glorious F You scams I have ever seen.  It’s as if someone can go murder someone and then claim all is good because I fathered a child as a replacement offset....nothing to see here.  Yup, I can burn emit as much carbon as I want as long as I offset it elsewhere with a donation or perceived eco savings.  It’s absurd. 

And the data.....why won’t they release the data?  Hmm.  If it is such a slam dunk, release it all, including the modeling methodologies, which these refuse to do.  If you control the narrative, control the recipe, you can have it say whatever you want.  But yes, humans have an impact.  Guess what, no humans on other planets, their climates changing too....despite no humans.  Aside from humans, so do animals, so does the Sun, so do many things.

You think its hypocrisy because you don't understand the word, "Disincentive".  You tax the carbon so that a more ecological decision is made.  Its sort of like a sin tax for carbon.

But hey man, I guess since you're so far in the weeds with a few specific cases that I know nothing about, you can't see that more than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

But you're right, NASA doesn't know squat.   Its that one guy... he knows the truth.   

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/3
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

You're in the very stupid minority here.  Sorry.

[jesmu84]

Climate changes. Truth. Climate moves in cycles, waves, etc. True.

Also true that the change in climate data since roughly the beginning of the industrial revolution is the greatest change in the fastest amount of time in known history.

What does that mean in the short and long term? We don't definitively know. We can hypothesize. Personally, I'd like to have things structured so that we can try to avoid the "bad outcome" hypotheses, regardless if they were to actually come to pass. Risk management.

[Cheeks]

Climate changes. Truth. Climate moves in cycles, waves, etc. True.

Also true that the change in climate data since roughly the beginning of the industrial revolution is the greatest change in the fastest amount of time in known history.

What does that mean in the short and long term? We don't definitively know. We can hypothesize. Personally, I'd like to have things structured so that we can try to avoid the "bad outcome" hypotheses, regardless if they were to actually come to pass. Risk management.

We don’t know that second paragraph to be true because ice cores and other dated routes in which to capture the data are so limited.  It is also why the models have been so off, at least partly, because they thought some of this data captured to represent what was happening 100’s or 1000’s of years ago was more accurate than it was.  Some great articles on this.

I’m cool with your general hypothesis for number 3, but i’m Guessing how we get there, who pays, who is punished, etc will be quite different.

[Cheeks]

You think its hypocrisy because you don't understand the word, "Disincentive".  You tax the carbon so that a more ecological decision is made.  Its sort of like a sin tax for carbon.

But hey man, I guess since you're so far in the weeds with a few specific cases that I know nothing about, you can't see that more than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

But you're right, NASA doesn't know squat.   Its that one guy... he knows the truth.   

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/3
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

You're in the very stupid minority here.  Sorry.

You 97% number is false and debunked.

You still have yet to explain why there is fierce opposition to publicly sharing the data and methodology....I mean think about it, if an asteroid was coming to earth and the world had a fiver year head start to figure it out, we would be sharing data for the common god of mankind (are we allowed to say that...is it objectionable like God Bless America).  But instead, the data, methodology has not been shared.  Why?

Why?  Really simple.  Why?

Finally, I didn’t realize NASA was infallible.  It was only a few months ago they were embarrassed when they said what planet was closest to earth and they were proven wrong.  In fact there are any number of statements NASA and other institutes have said over the years that turned out to be wrong.

Sorry NASA, got this one wrong.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1103750/nasa-shock-space-agency-wrong-venus-mercury-earth-spt

[Hards Alumni]

You 97% number is false and debunked.

You still have yet to explain why there is fierce opposition to publicly sharing the data and methodology....I mean think about it, if an asteroid was coming to earth and the world had a fiver year head start to figure it out, we would be sharing data for the common god of mankind (are we allowed to say that...is it objectionable like God Bless America).  But instead, the data, methodology has not been shared.  Why?

Why?  Really simple.  Why?

Finally, I didn’t realize NASA was infallible.  It was only a few months ago they were embarrassed when they said what planet was closest to earth and they were proven wrong.  In fact there are any number of statements NASA and other institutes have said over the years that turned out to be wrong.

Sorry NASA, got this one wrong.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1103750/nasa-shock-space-agency-wrong-venus-mercury-earth-spt

You're the king, bro.  You got me.  Totally convinced now!

[WarriorDad]

Humans are part of the cause, how much no one knows.

Must have China and India on board.

NASA error in late 90’s because they did the conversion of a measurement to metric wrong caused them to lose a satellite or lander. 

[Cheeks]

You're the king, bro.  You got me.  Totally convinced now!

It’s a simple question and a chance to save the planet....why wouldn’t they want to put it to bed and release the model methodology and the data.  So selfish those planet savers...don’t you think?

[martyconlonontherun]

Going to pretend this is a Tesla thread.......Why would anyone steal a Tesla? Wouldn't it be found almost immediately and the guys in the car would be caught?

[Jables1604]

It’s a simple question and a chance to save the planet....why wouldn’t they want to put it to bed and release the model methodology and the data.  So selfish those planet savers...don’t you think?

I don’t know but I would think the same argument applies to releasing tax returns.

[Hards Alumni]

I don’t know but I would think the same argument applies to releasing tax returns.

rekt

[Cheeks]

I don’t know but I would think the same argument applies to releasing tax returns.

Ok....I guess equating the climate guys with him is appropriate.  I like the comparison.  Lots of liars.

[rocket surgeon]

  climate change is the biggest money laundering scam out there.  when a group of people can be so wrong so many times and still have credibility is a fool me twice many times over.  according to the "experts" manhattan should be under water but according to some real estate records, martha's vineyard is safe. eyn'a?  just ask #44

oh, and some of the biggest alarmists will not give up their private jets?  say it ain't so...where is the love

oh, and buy tesla but put a better alarm on it

[Cheeks]

NASA rules out asteroid collision with earth......hours later it hits earth.   Story yesterday.  NASA.....lots of very smart people, but not infallible.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1174377/asteroid-collision-nasa-2019-impact-earth-space-2019-end-times-nasa-asteroids-news

[Hards Alumni]

  climate change is the biggest money laundering scam out there.  when a group of people can be so wrong so many times and still have credibility is a fool me twice many times over.  according to the "experts" manhattan should be under water but according to some real estate records, martha's vineyard is safe. eyn'a?  just ask #44

oh, and some of the biggest alarmists will not give up their private jets?  say it ain't so...where is the love

oh, and buy tesla but put a better alarm on it

I don't think you're half as smart as you think you are.

My evidence is that you seem to have no idea what money laundering is.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Who’s getting rich on climate change???  This idea that there all these environmental scientists getting rich on this is funny.

Yet no one mentions the people clearly getting rich through denying it.

Weird.

[Cheeks]

Who’s getting rich on climate change???  This idea that there all these environmental scientists getting rich on this is funny.

Yet no one mentions the people clearly getting rich through denying it.

Weird.

I see uncle bloody eye wants to eliminate all fossil fuels. What a wonderful idea that will crater the world economy, destroy ability to make medicines, and everyday products we all take for granted.  He pinky promised to do it earlier this week in national tv.  It’s religion for these people, meanwhile they are the biggest hypocrites in the world using energy.

[Coleman]

Who’s getting rich on climate change???  This idea that there all these environmental scientists getting rich on this is funny.

Yet no one mentions the people clearly getting rich through denying it.

Weird.

Right.

[Hards Alumni]

Ah, now this makes sense.  It is also the most pathetic attempt at trying to make fun of someone I've seen... ever.  Like, the joke is that I have had long hair and a beard?

Come on man, you can do better.

[Jockey]

I see uncle bloody eye wants to eliminate all fossil fuels.

Couldn't you find someone in a wheelchair to make fun of? Seems like that is your style.

[JWags85]

Gregg Allman loved CC Sabathia?

[Jon]

Gregg Allman loved CC Sabathia?

Naw. Just had a horse face for his squeeze.

[Cheeks]

Couldn't you find someone in a wheelchair to make fun of? Seems like that is your style.

Canada weather getting chilly about now?

[Hards Alumni]

Gregg Allman loved CC Sabathia?

This is just their collective group's attempt to make fun of me I guess.  They've run out of intelligent arguments and have resorted to trying to make fun of my appearance and that of my friends and family.

They're old bullies, really. 

If you've resorted to making fun of my appearance, at least have the stones to post a picture of yourself.  But they won't.  They're cowards.  They'll post something cryptic about my background in an attempt to silence me, or they'll move on to posting a meme, or saying they were trolling me.

You know, just what passes for the behavior of elderly males these days.

[Jon]

Canada weather getting chilly about now?

Barbra Streisand is still in Brentwood I believe

[Jon]

Who’s getting rich on climate change???  This idea that there all these environmental scientists getting rich on this is funny.

Yet no one mentions the people clearly getting rich through denying it.

Weird.

I haven't read through the entire thread here but, addressing your comment, I would agree that scientists aren't necessarily getting rich on climate change. However, there is an entire cottage industry in academia geared to pumping out empiricism to support positions on both sides.

I was invited by the DOE to present recently at an global energy conference on hydrogen fuel systems and during the Q&A was challenged by an academic (from UW Madison, no less!) on the use of CH4 as a base fuel for power generation. His view is the burning any complex hydrocarbon is bad.

I asked if he flew or walked to the conference and if he walked from the airport.

The degree of hypocrisy among academics on global warming is staggering. And what was amazing is that when I spoke to this guy about EGR systems and how hydrogen is actually produced it was clear he had no real intelligence on the subject.

Instead, he resorted to spewing doom and gloom sound bites.

Human use of complex hydrocarbons has had an impact on climate but it is grossly overstated by many. And ask them if they are willing to sacrifice the advanced post-industrial lifestyle that is entirely the result of man harnessing the energy in hydrocarbons  and the hypocrisy is illuminated. 

A little more than 100 years ago the entirety of humankind was limited by the productive power of the horse. The advances in lifestyle, productivity, and scientific accomplishment since then is staggering.

One of my Brit colleagues looked up this guy's background and, of course, he has zero training in the sciences or engineering. He is some sort of "policy expert" who has made a living out of trying to scare people on science he does not understand.

To suggest that there isn't an industry built around academic research into global warming is naive.   

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Thanks for this response. I don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying. However I think there are a ton of people who are clearly ignorant of the people clearly getting rich off climate denial. It’s not too hard to draw that line.

[Its DJOver]

I haven't read through the entire thread here but, addressing your comment, I would agree that scientists aren't necessarily getting rich on climate change. However, there is an entire cottage industry in academia geared to pumping out empiricism to support positions on both sides.

I was invited by the DOE to present recently at an global energy conference on hydrogen fuel systems and during the Q&A was challenged by an academic (from UW Madison, no less!) on the use of CH4 as a base fuel for power generation. His view is the burning any complex hydrocarbon is bad.

I asked if he flew or walked to the conference and if he walked from the airport.

The degree of hypocrisy among academics on global warming is staggering. And what was amazing is that when I spoke to this guy about EGR systems and how hydrogen is actually produced it was clear he had no real intelligence on the subject.

Instead, he resorted to spewing doom and gloom sound bites.

Human use of complex hydrocarbons has had an impact on climate but it is grossly overstated by many. And ask them if they are willing to sacrifice the advanced post-industrial lifestyle that is entirely the result of man harnessing the energy in hydrocarbons  and the hypocrisy is illuminated. 

A little more than 100 years ago the entirety of humankind was limited by the productive power of the horse. The advances in lifestyle, productivity, and scientific accomplishment since then is staggering.

One of my Brit colleagues looked up this guy's background and, of course, he has zero training in the sciences or engineering. He is some sort of "policy expert" who has made a living out of trying to scare people on science he does not understand.

To suggest that there isn't an industry built around academic research into global warming is naive.

Like you, I haven't read this entire thread but regarding the bolded, why would these ideas be mutually exclusive?  Isn't the goal of many scientists to reduce the carbon footprint without compromising the luxuries that we are able to enjoy today because of hydrocarbons?

[rocket surgeon]

Like you, I haven't read this entire thread but regarding the bolded, why would these ideas be mutually exclusive?  Isn't the goal of many scientists to reduce the carbon footprint without compromising the luxuries that we are able to enjoy today because of hydrocarbons?

yes, and the global warming alarmists paying the "scientists" trying to find a (horse hockey)solution to justify not giving up their private jets, mega homes, SUV's etc.

[Its DJOver]

yes, and the global warming alarmists paying the "scientists" trying to find a (horse hockey)solution to justify not giving up their private jets, mega homes, SUV's etc.

If a viable solution can be discovered to something that is pretty universally accepted as happening, then does it matter where the funding originated from?

[Jon]

Thanks for this response. I don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying. However I think there are a ton of people who are clearly ignorant of the people clearly getting rich off climate denial. It’s not too hard to draw that line.

We are focused on making the generation of power and consumption of energy more efficient through innovative engineered solutions. Power generation requires a smorgasbord of sources. And for intermittent renewables to become efficient one needs to integrate stored energy systems into the equation. 

It is unrealistic to demand that we stop burning complex hydrocarbons.

I know that we have impacted the earth in doing so but who is willing to give up the benefits?

Like so much in contemporary society, there is a lot of yelling about the problem but precious little effort in solution-definition.

[Jon]

Like you, I haven't read this entire thread but regarding the bolded, why would these ideas be mutually exclusive?  Isn't the goal of many scientists to reduce the carbon footprint without compromising the luxuries that we are able to enjoy today because of hydrocarbons?

Read my reply to fluffy (that sounds odd in the reading of the words but humor me).

If we want the benefits of a post-industrial society which is based on exploiting the energy potentiality of complex hydrocarbons we need to improve the efficiency of combustion and intermittent renewables while reducing the release of harmful emissions.

We are part of a community of scientists and engineers working to make those efficiencies happen and our fund is now supporting projects on 5 continents.

I hate to say it but we invest in developing evidence-based solutions and not ideologues who demand that we stop burning things for power.

By the way, I love how people thunder and rage about burning hydrocarbons but then throw wood into the fireplace or sit around the fire pit. If they only knew what they were breathing in...     

[Its DJOver]

We are focused on making the generation of power and consumption of energy more efficient through innovative engineered solutions. Power generation requires a smorgasbord of sources. And for intermittent renewables to become efficient one needs to integrate stored energy systems into the equation. 

It is unrealistic to demand that we stop burning complex hydrocarbons.

I know that we have impacted the earth in doing so but who is willing to give up the benefits?

Like so much in contemporary society, there is a lot of yelling about the problem but precious little effort in solution-definition.

Immediately, you're absolutely correct, but should there not also be long term reduction goals that can be realistically met?  If the integration of renewable's is at a pace that allows for timely reduction without benefit loss can be achieved, would that not be ideal?  Now determining that pace seems to be the trillion dollar question, but we appear to at least have a pace...

[Jon]

Immediately, you're absolutely correct, but should there not also be long term reduction goals that can be realistically met?  If the integration of renewable's is at a pace that allows for timely reduction without benefit loss can be achieved, would that not be ideal?  Now determining that pace seems to be the trillion dollar question, but we appear to at least have a pace...

We just had had a validation study completed by Southwest Research Institute which verified a 50% uptick in indicated thermal efficiency for a methane-based hydrogen generation system. What this means is that the energy output or yield of a unit of base fuel is increased by half.

What once yielded 100 calories/joules/BTUs/therms/kW/dynes now delivers 150. More to follow but we did this for both stoichiometric and lean burn systems.   

You need to alter your paradigm to look for ways of increasing effective yield. That's the real solution.

[Jockey]

Immediately, you're absolutely correct, but should there not also be long term reduction goals that can be realistically met?  If the integration of renewable's is at a pace that allows for timely reduction without benefit loss can be achieved, would that not be ideal?  Now determining that pace seems to be the trillion dollar question, but we appear to at least have a pace...

Do we, though?

Our country's policy is too actively encourage the use of more coal and oil.

[Its DJOver]

Do we, though?

Our country's policy is too actively encourage the use of more coal and oil.

I was thinking more on a "humanity" scale.  This problem cannot be solved by any one country so it's not fair to look to any one country to solve it.  There are certainly more progressive areas of the world than others, but even in areas where you'll find your "drill baby drill" bumper stickers, there are steps being made to integrate more sustainable ideas.

[rocket surgeon]

If a viable solution can be discovered to something that is pretty universally accepted as happening, then does it matter where the funding originated from?

they(the global warming alarmists) are not looking for a solution.  if they really thought we had a problem, wouldn't they be the first to discard most, if not all the carbon emitting "things" they could, because my God, we only have 12 years to live otherwise.  they need the "scientists" to keep finding things to support the junk science so they can continue to divert money to "green things"  who is profiting from the "green things"?  in other words, re-distribute our money to unproven, inefficient, expensive "green things"  if the "scientists" find the solution to global blah blah, they will not have a reason to keep axking for money to "save" the planet, eyn'a?

follow the money

[Its DJOver]

they(the global warming alarmists) are not looking for a solution.  if they really thought we had a problem, wouldn't they be the first to discard most, if not all the carbon emitting "things" they could, because my God, we only have 12 years to live otherwise.  they need the "scientists" to keep finding things to support the junk science so they can continue to divert money to "green things"  who is profiting from the "green things"?  in other words, re-distribute our money to unproven, inefficient, expensive "green things"  if the "scientists" find the solution to global blah blah, they will not have a reason to keep axking for money to "save" the planet, eyn'a?

follow the money

Not trying to be insulting, just trying to understand your line-of-thought, correct me if I'm wrong.

You agree with the idea that the climate is changing, in part because of human action, including the burning of hydrocarbons, but you don't think that there are any long-term negative impacts that will be the result of said change.  Your reasoning for this is because "global warming alarmists" are not doing everything they can in their everyday lives to have the smallest, possibly non existent, carbon footprint possible.

[Jon]

Do we, though?

Our country's policy is too actively encourage the use of more coal and oil.

This is not true.

Stick to something you actually have knowledge of. Like moving to Canada. Oh, wait, you're still in the US.

Ok, then, stick to idle, gutless threats.

[Jockey]

This is not true.

Stick to something you actually have knowledge of. Like moving to Canada. Oh, wait, you're still in the US.

Ok, then, stick to idle, gutless threats.

You actually posted without making it about you. Bravo!!!!!

In truth, our president has called for lowering gasoline standards for cars. Our president called for (and promised) increased coal usage. I guess maybe I wasn't wrong. You can lie as well as he does, but I am still correct.

PS - I apologize for making this semi-political. That is not my intention - it was merely to let Mr. Hey-look-at-me know that his lie carries no weight and there was no other way to say it. In my earlier post, I used the terminology "our country" so as to avoid being political.

[rocket surgeon]

This is not true.

Stick to something you actually have knowledge of. Like moving to Canada. Oh, wait, you're still in the US.

Ok, then, stick to idle, gutless threats.

thanks for re-enlisting jonny and going over to kick some terrorist arse for us

[JWags85]

"Mr Hey Look at Me" actually has experience and connections in the field.  There is often more than meets the eye than a blustery Commander in Chief running his mouth for lobbyists and interest groups.  Crash and others in his field are working on long term solutions that supersede the talking point of the month or day.  I know its SHOCKING, but there are people from both sides who work, often together, within that unfathomable grey area of DRILL BABY DRILL and THE WORLD WILL BE DEAD IN A DECADE.

We had a really productive conversation with both sides for the better part of a day.  But of of course we always have to get political and tribal.  Good grief.  Carry on

[Cheeks]

We just had had a validation study completed by Southwest Research Institute which verified a 50% uptick in indicated thermal efficiency for a methane-based hydrogen generation system. What this means is that the energy output or yield of a unit of base fuel is increased by half.

What once yielded 100 calories/joules/BTUs/therms/kW/dynes now delivers 150. More to follow but we did this for both stoichiometric and lean burn systems.   

You need to alter your paradigm to look for ways of increasing effective yield. That's the real solution.

SwRI....that brings back memories.  I would fly to San Antonio every month to meet with them and EG&G down there and their testing labs in my first job out of Marquette.