I'm not thinking of anything. I know exactly what I am talking about because I sell, design and install security systems all day long.

NFC is a set of technologies for smartphones, that uses standard RFID frequencies.They can typicaly read 13.56Mhz RFID which is smartcard technology (Mifare, desFire, etc...) found in newer access cards and bank cards.

RFID is a generic term. Specific technologies and frequencies are whats important.

Regardless of any of this, read your link carefully, it doesn't say that you can read a tiny passive tag at 1-3m.

- To read at more than a few inches you need something in a high frequency range. 433mhz to 2.4ghz.
- Your tag needs to be relatively big (2-4 inches, like these stickers https://www.awid.com/index.php...)
- It has to be positioned just right, wont be reading it sideways
- The reader needs some good power and a good size (https://www.awid.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=537:lr-2000&catid=979:readers-lr-avi&Itemid=205)

This can be increased if the RFID tag has a battery, then however it is no longer Passive, it is active. And thats a hole other ball game.

Only reason RFID tags put on clothing in stores can read from several feet is because the readers (those large SENSORMATIC devices at the exits) have copper rings that are 2-5 feet high) which increases the read range of the tiny RFID chips with tiny cooper rings.

Also, you wont be doing inventory with RFID chips that read up to 20-30 feet. That would be crazy expensive RFID chips on your cheap merchandise and also, you wouldnt be able to figure out where your inventory is, as you can read it from across the room. Doesn't make much sense.

So... basically, my point was just, you cant have a tiny key chain as an RFID reader, read tiny chips, on tiny objects around you. Just wont work.... with currently technology.

Unless you use tiny batteries :)

Passive RFID doesnt have a range much bigger than a few inches.

Also range is dependent on the size of the cooper ring (antenna) or the passive device and/or the active device (reader)

Unless your keychain is 4 feet long... you aint going to be reading any passive devices around you. Also, orientation is important, so you might, with your 4 foot long key chain, find devices directly ahead, however, if they are a few inches to the left... they might as well not exist.

Faster than they are being produced?

I think you need to explain that one to the market. Because we are producing so much oil right now, we dont know where to store it.
Hence the rock bottom price of oil.

Unusual, no.

The fact that you do not like the answer has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

But of course, there is no way for me to stop you trying to spin this into something is not and try as hard as you can to discredit him because you do not like his research.

And to warp up, what makes money from the fossil fuel industry so dirty when its tied to papers that disagree with AGW but clean as white snow when its given to the AGW camp side? Because I'm sure you know that there is just as much, if not more money given by big energy to the AGW camp, from Shell, to Exxon, Koch and others.

Its a double standard and it has no bearing on the actual research.

However, there is no such thing as a global temperature.

Averaging of all local temperatures is a completely meaningless tool for evaluating if climates are being affected by rising CO2.

Climates are regional, they are NOT global.

Besides, 0.02C +/- 0.09C does not make a year the WARMEST on record. It makes it pretty much flat with the rest of the last 18 years.

He worked, as did his co-authors, on this paper on his own time.

As was disclosed.

There was no funding source on Dr. Soon's latest paper.

Wooooosh!

Like those pesky scientists who dared do research and publish on the fact that cholesterol is not the evil boogey man we have been looking for.
The science was settled, those idiots should have let it lie...

The last time? Are you serious?
The pharmaceutical is one of the biggest industries in the world with thousands and thousands of scientists, papers are being published every single day.

Where do you think vaccines come from?
Medicine?

Your post is so idiotic... I don't even know why I'm replying to it, except to just make sure some other morons with only 2 brain cells don't read the crap you posted and think it makes sense.

Its not as simple as that, now is it.

Most of those who work on the IPCC reports are also paid by their universities, their respective governments or from grants to do their individual research when they are not working on an assessment report.

I hope you are not trying to make us believe that only 5-6 million dollars a year is spent on climate research. It isn't even 5-6 billion. And you know that.

Nice try. You saying so, does not make it true, in this age of climate scaremongering.
Try getting a government grant, if your research subject is, "The limits of CO2's radiative forcing."

Also, by the way. 120 000$ is the average salary of a tenured university professor.
What makes them less "bad" than someone making the same amount from another sources?

Should we ignore all papers from scientists who work for the pharmaceutical industries?

So 1.2 million over the last decade comes to about $120 000 a year.
With whatever it costs, per year, to do research, then whatever is left cant really be considered "getting rich from the fossil industry".

Seriously. If you are a scientist and your research is contrary to the establishments priorities, where will you get your funding if grants are only given to those who who will publish the "right" findings.

You climate catastrophists are good at inventing analogies that make no sense, but sound smart. What if we did hold them up to the same standards... what if we didint... what does it have to do with anything at all? I will hold it up to high enough standard, because those predictions are being used to completely disrupt our economy and to siphon money from every consumer to give to the UN, the IMF and ultimately, the bankers.

We don't have to do that. The media goes all worst case scenario all the time... and the head scientists, Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, Cook and the other nutters, don't reel them in.

Again... we don't have to do that. The media, the greenies, environmental groups and a few of the scientists are screaming that the planet will melt down. We are saying its all hogwash.

Thats not how it works. You dont prove a negative. Its like a creationist asking me to PROVE god doesnt exists. Your side has not proven that the CO2 heats the planet to death theory holds water. If they did, there wouldnt be a debate. Simple as that. Calling sceptical scientists deniers, shutting them out of debates. Refusing to debate, is a sure fire sign that you actually DONT have the truth on your side.
Do your own research, you obviously havent.

I guess humans didint live through the MWP or the LIA... WTF is wrong with you idiots. You think you can just make up any statement and people are too stupid to point out its a lie? You know that is the definition of propaganda. Say the same lie so many times it becomes thruth... And then you same greeny idiots call for the death and murder of climate sceptics...

Again, inventing things. Humans are seriously resilient. Humans with resources are even more so. So lets stop siphoning money away from the middle class, lets get our economies fire-started and stop this BULLSHIT about climate change and wasting 100s of billions a year into it. Eventually in due time, better energy sources will be viable and we'll automatically switch over to them. Also, society as a whole will be MUCH richer. Just as most of the west now is SO MUCH richer than it was only 100 years ago.

With resources comes the ability to adapt more easily, if necessary. The bullshit about the cost being IMPOSSIBLE if we don't mitigate NOW... is hogwash of the highest order.

I learned this from the global warming alarmists:

1. If its warm its global warming, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
2. If its cold its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
3. If it rains its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
4. If it doesn't rain its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
5. If its humid its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
6. If its dry its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
7. If we get a breeze its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.