# California restaurants may add climate change surcharge



## Chef Doom (Apr 25, 2019)

Since I believe climate change is a hoax I will be avoiding all restaurants that attempts this policy.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/california-restaurants-climate-change-surcharge


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 25, 2019)

Are you the official s*** poster on kkf? You've been on fire recently


----------



## 5698k (Apr 25, 2019)

Chef Doom said:


> Since I believe climate change is a hoax I will be avoiding all restaurants that attempts this policy.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/california-restaurants-climate-change-surcharge



+1!!


----------



## M1k3 (Apr 25, 2019)

Chef Doom said:


> Since I believe climate change is a hoax I will be avoiding all restaurants that attempts this policy.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/california-restaurants-climate-change-surcharge



According to the article, it's an optional fee for customers to pay.


----------



## DamageInc (Apr 25, 2019)

Climate change is real. I remember just a few months ago, it was considerably colder. I hope the restaurants are doing something about this.


----------



## Barmoley (Apr 25, 2019)

It is worse than that. The temperature keeps on jumping colder to hotter and back every 12 or so hours. It is very disturbing. I hope restaurants decide to be open during the colder periods and close during the warmer ones to maximize their effect on the global climate change.


----------



## Chicagohawkie (Apr 25, 2019)

Leave it to the honklers of California! How’s the straw ban working out?


----------



## labor of love (Apr 25, 2019)

Chicagohawkie said:


> Leave it to the honklers of California! How’s the straw ban working out?


Well a couple of companies are making a killing with paper straws.


----------



## Chicagohawkie (Apr 25, 2019)

labor of love said:


> Well a couple of companies are making a killing with paper straws.


Probably owned by politicians!


----------



## ian (Apr 25, 2019)

.... ok, I have no strong opinions about the straw ban, and I won’t go political, but let’s say that some topics I find it hard to joke too much about.

#literalgallowshumor


----------



## labor of love (Apr 25, 2019)

I’m good with the straw ban.


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 25, 2019)

Chicagohawkie said:


> Probably owned by politicians!


relax there chemtrails. Its honestly no big deal, but I rarely ever use straws anyway. Ive used a few paper straws, its fine, they have a wax lining and do break down after an hour or two while. Dunno if the cost of making one is better or worse than plastic for the environment, but will probably get better over time


----------



## Chicagohawkie (Apr 25, 2019)

slickmamba said:


> relax there chemtrails. Its honestly no big deal, but I rarely ever use straws anyway. Ive used a few paper straws, its fine, they have a wax lining and do break down after an hour or two while. Dunno if the cost of making one is better or worse than plastic for the environment, but will probably get better over time


Relaxed here Honkler, happy you think it's no big deal.


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 25, 2019)

Chicagohawkie said:


> Relaxed here Honkler, happy you think it's no big deal.


Im gonna assume thats the new "cuck." thanks man, you asked, I delivered. I really never see anyone complain about it, only people on the internet hundreds of miles away.


----------



## Barmoley (Apr 25, 2019)

I am in California and I complain about the ban all the time. Paper straws are disscusting. Worse of all the ban is pointless, even proponents agree that it is absolutely pointless and just a feel good, we did something type of a move.


----------



## Paraffin (Apr 25, 2019)

ian said:


> .... ok, I have no strong opinions about the straw ban, and I won’t go political, but let’s say that some topics I find it hard to joke too much about.#literalgallowshumor



Same here. Maybe it depends on how old you are, and whether you have kids and grand kids (I have both). 

I'm not jumping on every nonsense local attempt to wave flags about climate change, and don't want to get all political here. But I think it's obvious that my grand kids won't be living in exactly the same kind of world as the one I grew up in.


----------



## panda (Apr 25, 2019)

I hate paperstraws with a passion.


----------



## Paraffin (Apr 25, 2019)

And while we're at it, who drinks anything worth drinking with a straw? I can't remember the last time I actually wanted a straw for something. But then I'm an old guy, obviously out of touch with the current cultural zeitgeist.


----------



## labor of love (Apr 25, 2019)

Paraffin said:


> And while we're at it, who drinks anything worth drinking with a straw? I can't remember the last time I actually wanted a straw for something. But then I'm an old guy, obviously out of touch with the current cultural zeitgeist.


I feel the same way. I suppose this punishes people that eat fast food. In which case I’m all for it.


----------



## ian (Apr 25, 2019)

Paraffin said:


> And while we're at it, who drinks anything worth drinking with a straw? I can't remember the last time I actually wanted a straw for something. But then I'm an old guy, obviously out of touch with the current cultural zeitgeist.



Milkshakes and fresh coconut. Otherwise I agree.

I also remember endless fun scrunching up the paper straw covers to one end of the straw, sliding them off the end, and then adding a drop of water to them and watching the paper expand and writhe. If the conversation lags, pull out the gags! Can we get paper straws with the same paper covers?


----------



## Paraffin (Apr 26, 2019)

I remember paper covers on straws as being something fun to shoot like a blowgun dart, aiming for my sister's eye when I was a kid. Okay, so that's one good thing they're good for. My wife doesn't let me have fun like that with straws any more.


----------



## M1k3 (Apr 26, 2019)

Paraffin said:


> I remember paper covers on straws as being something fun to shoot like a blowgun dart, aiming for my sister's eye when I was a kid. Okay, so that's one good thing they're good for. My wife doesn't let me have fun like that with straws any more.



Mine does.


----------



## bahamaroot (Apr 26, 2019)

The s*** you people will argue over...PAPER!...PLASTIC!

And anyone that thinks climate change is a hoax is living with their head in the sand.


----------



## Matus (Apr 26, 2019)

Please keep the politics out of this discussion so that this can remain my only intrusion in this thread. 

Long may live human ability to ignore science and reason. And trolls. Long live trolls. Now where is my dinner.


----------



## Bert2368 (Apr 26, 2019)

M1k3 said:


> Mine does.


I have to quickly tear BOTH ends off of any straw wrappers served to us, or SHE will shoot ME in the face ASAP.

She is the biggest 8 YO kid you will ever meet.


----------



## M1k3 (Apr 26, 2019)

Bert2368 said:


> I have to quickly tear BOTH ends off of any straw wrappers served to us, or SHE will shoot ME in the face ASAP.
> 
> She is the biggest 8 YO kid you will ever meet.



Guess I'm the 8 yo


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

bahamaroot said:


> And anyone that thinks climate change is a hoax is living with their head in the sand.



I think of it more as a type of scientific fraud that is pushed by a type of cult. Don't know if that really makes things better. Every 10 years there is new doomsday cult popping up. But as people grow more and more stupid more people get sucked into this.

I found these 2 little graphs. You do the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

From ice core drillings on greenland.
Central Greenland reconstructed temperature. Data source:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html






then we have climate models vs measurements.


----------



## M1k3 (Apr 26, 2019)

Isn't it better to take care of the environment and be wrong about about global warming/climate change/whatever hip buzzword is used? Instead of denying it and doing nothing and finding out it's actually happening?


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

Of course it is. But unless you can convince 2,5-3 billion people in china and india to "quit" coal power then it doesn't really matter now does it?
They are planning to build about 2,5-3k new coal burning plants in the near future in these countries. Because they want electricity.

Also as long as people insist of getting the cheapest crap from asia over and over (instead of buying locally produced stuff) that is transported on big container ships that pollutes like hell then we can forget about it too. Each and every one of these ships pollutes about as much as 5-50 MILLION cars! And there is not 10 of them. There is 65000 of them! This will continue until people stop buying this sh1t!

So maybe we should start in the right end first with all this? No?


----------



## Bert2368 (Apr 26, 2019)

Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).


----------



## 5698k (Apr 26, 2019)

There’s been no trend established. The earth is between 4.2-4.6 billion years old. The average “trend” with the climate alarmists is roughly 30 years. Even if you give it 10,000 years, it’s still not a trend!

600,000 years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now, that’s part of the geological record.


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 26, 2019)

5698k said:


> There’s been no trend established. The earth is between 4.2-4.6 billion years old. The average “trend” with the climate alarmists is roughly 30 years. Even if you give it 10,000 years, it’s still not a trend!
> 
> 600,000 years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now, that’s part of the geological record.



What??? Nobody is saying earth has been heating up over the last 4.5b yrs, I think you, and many others, have been misinformed about the issue. The earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, many of which are natural, some are caused by external factors like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. These events of mass cooling and heating literally cause mass extinction events.

What people are saying is that our use of fossil fuels and other climate warming molecules(like methane) are speeding up these natural warming events and if we don't adress them, will lead to more mass extinction(many people argue we are currently in a mass extinction event https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...y/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/). There are indeed established trends in heating and if you think there aren't you are being purposefully ignorant. A large portion of the climate trend is felt in the oceans and in the ice caps, where temperature changes are felt the most.(https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature)





(Yearly global surface temperature from 1900–2017 compared to the 1981-2010 average (dashed line). The different colors represent different research groups' analysis of the historical temperature record. NOAA Climate.gov graph adapted from _State of the Climate in 2017. _Details on the datasets can be found in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 in the report.)

Also, @inferno not sure what you're trying to say with those graphs, but taking data/graphs out of context is literally cherry picking, and leads to more misinformation and maybe "stupid people" like you said. Could you explain what you are trying to say with them?


----------



## ian (Apr 26, 2019)

Sorry mods, one comment, since this is not about politics, but science:

We can try to argue back and forth about climate change on KKF, but the point is that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists (translation: people who know what they are talking about) agree that the climate is changing, that we are responsible, and that the effects will not be good for us. If you think you know better than people that actually study the issue, more power to you.


----------



## 5698k (Apr 26, 2019)

Seriously? Ignorant? Uh, no.


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 26, 2019)

A small point that I think people don't realize is that we are not destroying the Earth. It has been through worse events in history("the great dying" of the permian era https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...nt-earths-ocean-dwelling-creatures-180970992/). The Earth will be fine, it goes through natural cycles of cooling and heating, species dying, more adapting and evolving, and the plants and animals will come back after some million years. The climate change issue is that we are speeding up this possible natural heating cycle and making the earth harder to live in for many species leading to our current high number of extinctions(like corals and many bug and plant species), including humans.


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 26, 2019)

5698k said:


> Seriously? Ignorant? Uh, no.


Man, I hope that isn't all you took away from what I wrote. Maybe Ignorant is too strong of a word, I should've said uninformed, need to go back to millenial school for pc training. I'm probably gonna get banned pretty soon, Sorry Matus.

I really didn't mean to offend you, but just to say that all the data is out there, if you are not seriously engaging with it, and instead only listening to skeptics with no science, then I can't help you. I always though critical thinking and being willing to accept new information(earth is not flat, lobotomies maybe arent so great, etc) was a virtue, but I just see more and more people locked into their feelings with debunked 'facts' or anecdotal evidence. I should probably stop posting, PM me if you wanna talk more.


----------



## 5698k (Apr 26, 2019)

Uninformed? No to that too. All the data is computer generated, data input by the people getting the government grants that want man made climate change to be real. It’s just not.


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

slickmamba said:


> Also, @inferno not sure what you're trying to say with those graphs, but taking data/graphs out of context is literally cherry picking, and leads to more misinformation and maybe "stupid people" like you said. Could you explain what you are trying to say with them?




its *measurements* from greenland ice cores. reconstructing the temperature on that specific place. and as we all can see temperature can go up and down 4 degrees C just from natural cycles. just in the last 11k years.
so was it airplanes that caused the 4 degree spike 8000 years ago? or was it the cars? maybe the iphones?

the second one is also *measurements* from balloons and satellites vs alarmists predictions from 1970ies to today. 

1 measurement is worth 1000 scientists opinions (old audio measurement saying)...


----------



## ian (Apr 26, 2019)

inferno said:


> 1 measurement is worth 1000 scientists opinions (old audio measurement saying)...



I suspect the scientists are also aware of such measurements (and many others) and nevertheless have come to their conclusions... perhaps they know better how to interpret the data than do we on KKF?


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

ian said:


> Sorry mods, one comment, since this is not about politics, but science:
> 
> We can try to argue back and forth about climate change on KKF, but the point is that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists (translation: people who know what they are talking about) agree that the climate is changing, that we are responsible, and that the effects will not be good for us. If you think you know better than people that actually study the issue, more power to you.



I saw a list of "climate scientists" active in my country because they had written an article in one of the newspapers.

Someone took the time to actually find out what these people were actually doing. Very few of them could actually be called scientists. and even fewer of them could be called climate scientists.

Most of them are just academics from whatever field of expertise that happens to support the "climate change" movement. Just because you have some academic title, any academic title (usually some nonsense complete BS title you wonder if its even real at all) and happen to support "climate change" does not make you a "climate scientist"! I just wished the newspapers knew this too. Too bad they are political agenda driven and have an axe to grind.

Just because I like rockets, think rockets are cool and have read 2 articles on wikipedia and seen a few youtube vids on rockets, does not make me a fvcking rocket surgeon now all the sudden!

I didn't believe in the y2k crash, nor the 2012 mayan end of earth prophecy, peak oil, all those comets/asteroids/meteors that should have killed us every year, and had i lived in the 1500:eds i would not have believed the earth was flat (since you can see the curvature of the earth with your own eyes from any hill, or at any beach).

So yeah I'm a bit skeptical here this time too. to say the least.

I like this saying: who are you gonna believe, me, or your own lying eyes.  And I always believe my own eyes primarily.


----------



## WildBoar (Apr 26, 2019)

More water and less land means more fish and less livestock, right? So won't we all be healthier because we are eating more fish? Hell, it will probably create an increase in the population growth rate since people will be living longer, and those extra people are going to stress the planet. And if people would actually stop smoking (yeah, I am looking at a lot of the pro cooks out there), we would really be in trouble population-wise (BTW, why aren't catalytic converters required on cigarette and cigars? They massively pollute!).


----------



## Michi (Apr 26, 2019)

ian said:


> an overwhelming majority of climate scientists (translation: people who know what they are talking about) agree that the climate is changing, that we are responsible, and that the effects will not be good for us. If you think you know better than people that actually study the issue, more power to you.


Unfortunately, by and large, ignorance does not stop people from forming judgement about things they have no clue about. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

After all, when thousands of professionals who have studied meteorology and climate for decades say that climate change is real, serious, and human-induced, why on earth would I not know better than them? How hard could it possibly be? And, obviously, all the governments who spend billions of dollars on satellites to observe weather patterns and sea levels are delusional and part of some giant conspiracy.

Oh yes, in case you had not noticed, the US never landed on the moon (that was a hoax), and the earth is flat. (I know, I saw that on the internet!)

I will now go and consult a Japanese knife collector about next week's weather, and I will have a meteorologist show me how to make sushi. After all, I might as well take advice from the experts, right?

All the while enjoying a life expectancy that—due to advancements in agricultural science, medicine, and technology—is twice that of people 150 years ago, and while typing this on a computer that exists only because scientists figured out how make it. But scientists are just clueless idiots, obviously. Don't believe what they say!


----------



## Michi (Apr 26, 2019)

inferno said:


> I didn't believe in the y2k crash


I happen to be a computer scientist. A good one. I have a world-wide reputation as an expert on distributed computing, have written an authoritative book on the topic, and have been (and still am) writing high-performance distributed computing software for more than three decades.

I can very firmly assure you that y2k was never a matter of belief, just as gravity is not a matter of belief. The reason the y2k meltdown never happened is that countless thousands of engineers took y2k very seriously and worked diligently for an entire decade to make sure that, when the millennium ticked over, the lights would stay on. This was not a matter of belief, but a matter of an enormous amount of very tedious and diligent work.

But what would _I_ know about all this? I'm only a computer scientist, after all…


----------



## slickmamba (Apr 26, 2019)

inferno said:


> its *measurements* from greenland ice cores. reconstructing the temperature on that specific place. and as we all can see temperature can go up and down 4 degrees C just from natural cycles. just in the last 11k years.
> so was it airplanes that caused the 4 degree spike 8000 years ago? or was it the cars? maybe the iphones?
> 
> the second one is also *measurements* from balloons and satellites vs alarmists predictions from 1970ies to today.
> ...




last reply, but again,* literally nobody* is arguing that heating and cooling is not natural, it is. Scientifically, that first one just shows that we are in an era of heating, which the scientists and deniers both agree on.

I love how to some people scientists are not to be trusted, but then release data that "harm" their own funding? I looked it up, apparently the tropical mid tropospheric chart you posted is something deniers hold onto(2014?), but has been debunked. Its impossible to change your minds, but hopefully it has helped others who are unsure. Again, PM me if you want.



inferno said:


> I saw a list of "climate scientists" active in my country because they had written an article in one of the newspapers.


Those are probably activists doing their own tests, not actual researchers.



inferno said:


> I didn't believe in the y2k crash, nor the 2012 mayan end of earth prophecy, peak oil, all those comets/asteroids/meteors that should have killed us every year


literally just **** the news plays up on for views, not real scientific beliefs. AFAIK, all large dooms day meteors are continually tracked by NASA. 

I'm gonna stick to BST threads for a while.


----------



## ian (Apr 26, 2019)

+1 to Michi as usual.

Since there was the talk about scientists faking/misinterpreting the data for grants or something above, one should stop for a minute and really think about which viewpoint is more incentivized here.

I mean, I certainly don’t want to do anything to curb my emissions. That’s a huge pain! My life is easier if I ignore all this. So what’s easier to believe?


----------



## daveb (Apr 26, 2019)

Last Call.


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

ian said:


> I suspect the scientists are also aware of such measurements (and many others) and nevertheless have come to their conclusions... perhaps they know better how to interpret the data than do we on KKF?



most of them are not scientist. they are just random academics that support the climate agenda. like 80-85% are like this and the rest 15% or so are actually scientist from whatever field. and like 1% are actual "climate scientists". its all BS.


----------



## labor of love (Apr 26, 2019)

Ted Kaczynski was right.


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

Michi said:


> I happen to be a computer scientist. A good one. I have a world-wide reputation as an expert on distributed computing, have written an authoritative book on the topic, and have been (and still am) writing high-performance distributed computing software for more than three decades.
> 
> I can very firmly assure you that y2k was never a matter of belief, just as gravity is not a matter of belief. The reason the y2k meltdown never happened is that countless thousands of engineers took y2k very seriously and worked diligently for an entire decade to make sure that, when the millennium ticked over, the lights would stay on. This was not a matter of belief, but a matter of an enormous amount of very tedious and diligent work.
> 
> But what would _I_ know about all this? I'm only a computer scientist, after all…



it was yet another doomsday prophecy that never happened. There have been thousands of these. and they are never right. i wonder why.


----------



## ian (Apr 26, 2019)

(Edited to sound nicer...)

Here’s an anecdote from a few years ago when our child was born. We live in a pretty liberal neighborhood, and we were going to these childbirth classes, and visiting a chiropractor, and all the people we interacted with who were in these sorts of health-related professions were pushing an “alternative schedule” for vaccinations, and/or suggesting that we consider not vaccinating. This kind of constant questioning of the governmental standards by people that you are already imbuing with some amount of authority is hard to ignore, especially when you’re a clueless new parent. Now don’t get me wrong, we totally vaccinated our child under the usual schedule, but it at least made me feel really confused at the time, and had me ask some questions of our pediatrician that he found kind of annoying. As a result, I’m a little more sympathetic to people questioning vaccines now than I would have been otherwise, even as I try to convince them to vaccinate.


----------



## WildBoar (Apr 26, 2019)

I happily admit the last thing I ever, ever do is think my government is acting in the best interests of the general population. I work with far too many gov't agencies, and have too many friends who work at them, to remotely believe that they do. Many, many decisions that affect vast numbers of people are not done in the best interests of the general public. And that is here in the US, where our gov't is better then many others.


----------



## chinacats (Apr 26, 2019)

This thread makes me realize why I don't talk to people about subjects like this...


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

ian said:


> +1 to Michi as usual.
> 
> Since there was the talk about scientists faking/misinterpreting the data for grants or something above, one should stop for a minute and really think about which viewpoint is more incentivized here.
> 
> I mean, I certainly don’t want to do anything to curb my emissions. That’s a huge pain! My life is easier if I ignore all this. So what’s easier to believe?



i tell you what. last summer was quite warm. so not everyone goes apesh1t here and the earth is exploding. Now i was also in holland and germany last summer, and it was several degrees hotter since it more south. now not one single person in those 2 countries found it hotter than normal. Not one single person i met said a single word about this. 

also 1994 was extremely warm. i loved that summer. its was one of the best summers here. 2010 was also very warm and nice.

this winter was very cold. so what is is warm or cold? i ride my bike so when its -15C i notice it. 
In northern norway they never go summer at all last year. it was 10deg C at most. 

so i guess the climate change is local. very very local. and it can somehow go warmer or colder. its a zero sum game. if it get warmer here it gets colder there. who would have thought that?? wow!


----------



## ian (Apr 26, 2019)

Anyone willing to free us from this by closing the thread? I feel like I won’t be able to stop of my own free will...


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

I think we should discuss this until we're done. Until the topic is exhausted.


----------



## WildBoar (Apr 26, 2019)

No exhaust without emissions controls...


----------



## ian (Apr 26, 2019)

Ironically, I think @Chef Doom might be the one with the least number of dogs in this fight. Professional provocateur—I admire you.


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

WildBoar said:


> No exhaust without emissions controls...


touché


----------



## inferno (Apr 26, 2019)

ian said:


> Ironically, I think @Chef Doom might be the one with the least number of dogs in this fight. Professional provocateur—I admire you.



He just like to stir sh1t up.


----------



## panda (Apr 26, 2019)

how in the hell did climate change and paper straws even become a topic in here? LMAO yall will argue over anything.

but at the same time, eventually when everyone is out on electric cars, i'll get myself a good ol american V8.


----------



## Bert2368 (Apr 26, 2019)

Personal background I bring to this discussion?

My parents both had/have PhDs.

One in physics.

The other in psychology.

(I am my families underachiever).

I was very, very bored as a child living out in the country, 30 miles from the nearest decent library, long, long before internet was available.

I was also a precocious brat and they left their college texts within my reach.

I followed dad, started in engineering, electronics and technology. I have learned a little about such things, I'm not an expert on ANNYTHING.

I also learned a little about how people think (and sometimes fail to), interpret what they hear and see then form/communicate about their opinions, including the many known deviations from strict rationality which evolutionary biology and our very closely related political and social systems place in our paths towards the least wrong assessment of reality and our subsequent actions.

Please, before expressing your thoughts as to the concrete, absolute truth on these matters, consider if you have:

1: PERSONALLY LEARNED THE SCIENCES INVOLVED.

2: BEEN JUDGED BY YOUR PEERS AS ABLE TO KNOWLEDGEABLY, OBJECTIVELY AND INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE THE DATA COLLECTION PARADIGMS UNDERLYING THE STATISTICS BEING INTERPRETED.

3: PERSONALLY LEARNED TO APPLY THE STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS USED TO INTERPRET SAID DATA.

4. RIGOROUSLY, CAREFULLY AND WITH AS LITTLE BIAS OR PREJUDICE AS POSSIBLE DONE SO.

There.

Now I can be hit from both sides of the road...


----------



## WildBoar (Apr 26, 2019)

Panda, they do not rev to 12,000 RPMs without serious damage, so they may get it done for you...

Although if you add some supplemental electric motors so you can up the torque a few hundred more ft-lbs -- maybe try to top 1000?  Won't help with the low rev limit, but would be a lot of fun.


----------



## daveb (Apr 26, 2019)

The end.


----------

