Xircal

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The largest source of animal methane in NZ is from sheep and it is BELCHING, not farting that passes most of the gas.

Sheep spending too much time in the pub then.

It's a bad judgement call in my opinion. TTP isn't about how much the US earns from the deal, but rather about containing Chinese ambitions in the region. In fact, the US would have earned less than 1% overal while countries like Vietnam would have seen its economies blossom by around 10%.

Also, the US could have stood up proudly and said that it was defending the interests of its friends in Asia and the South Pacific by ratifying the treaty even though it wouldn't benefit financially much. But that deal is now off the cards and the decision will likely rattle the nerves of allies still further given the rhetoric Trump has been sprouting lately about not defending NATO countries that haven't contributed 2% of GDP to defence. (He means they have to buy more guns, tanks, aircraft and missiles from the US).

But announcing that he'll be withdrawing from the TTP treaty on his first day in office would seem to indicate that he's taken that decision without consulting his advisers first. Had he done so I'm sure the Pentagon at the very least would have tried to dissuade him from doing so.

Trump is both a narcissistic and a greedy man. His record in business is abysmal and most of his wealth has come from his father. He now has the power to make decisions which affect the whole world and if there's something in it for him personally, I'm sure he won't hesitate to snap it up no matter what the cost to the rest of us.

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Under the scheme which will become effective January 1 next year, people earning less than 30,000 baht a year will be given 3,000 baht as a one time subsidy for cost of living

30k baht a year is only 83 baht (+ 34 satang) a day. Maybe if the PM tries living on that amount every day he might appreciate that giving someone an additional 8 baht a day (3,000 baht / 365 days) isn't going to make much difference to their welfare.

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, warming temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric levels of CO2. That's because the warmer that water is, the less ability it has to hold gases. So the warmer the oceans get, the less CO2 they can hold. You can see this in an exaggerated fashion if you compare the difference between opening a warm bottle of soda water and a cold one. But the principal applies.

OK, I'm not disputing what you're saying, but the CO2 stored in the oceans has already been produced by some other means. Rising temperatures on their own don't manufacture CO2 which is the point I was trying to make.

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't trust trump. Not news but don't know why anyone does. He has no experience and the way he's already mixed his campaign for presidency with his family and business interests are huge red flags. So trump dumps TPP and lets China dominate Asia. This doesn't smell right to me. China's government must be having a big party now. 

Face it, he's a bloody ISOLATIONIST allied with right wing extremists of the worse kind (white supremacist nativist racists).  It's nothing new in American history. Look up Henry Ford and Lindbergh ... but they never were president. 

 

God help us. 

Yes, I was reading an article in the Washington Post this morning about how Trump is using the presidency to further his business interests: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/21/a-running-list-of-how-donald-trumps-new-position-is-helping-his-business-interests/

Also, I did a search for, "Trump businesses that went bust" to try and understand why he thinks trashing the TTP is a good thing and found a report about his lack of business acumen which is really quite shocking: http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091?rm=eu

Worse still perhaps is the fact that he doesn't need congressional approval to tear up any of the free trade agreements which are currently in force like NAFTA. That will really cause an upset if he tears that one up as well. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/14/news/economy/donald-trump-economic-plan-1-trillion/index.html?iid=EL

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wish you had asked me that.

G W isn't reversible without such severe consequences that the people will not accept it. So, yes it is reversible, but not politically possible.

Has anyone said that things aren't getting warmer? It is obvious that it is, in summer. Winters are just as cold- well below freezing in many countries.

What is in dispute is whether humans are responsible or if it is a result of solar activity, and rising CO2 levels are a result of rising temperatures.

OR, it could be Gaia cleansing the planet of a pest that is destroying the environment.

 

Whatever one's favourite explanation, why has no one else on here proposed population reduction as a solution? It is obvious that the more humans the more pollution of all sorts. Reduce the population and pollution will reduce as well.

Actually, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases are cows. Yes, dear old Nellie produces around 120kg of methane gas a year when she farts and methane is significantly more potent than CO2. There are approximately 1.5 billion cows worldwide which along with other livestock accounts for 28% of total emissions: https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

But rising temperatures on their own don't produce CO2. Something has to be burnt like coal or wood so Thailand and Indonesia contribute to the amount of CO2 produced when they both burn forestry to make way for new crops.

But rising global temperatures will cause melting of the permafrost which will release significant amounts of methane into the upper atmosphere. The UK Guardian has an informative article on the subject which should start the alarm bells ringing for anyone who still thinks that global warming is a hoax: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Great post you've put up.

Okay, I'm not a suppporter of putting taxes onto imports, but Trump will probably (or might) still impose them. You've mentioned the specific case of Apple, what about other products ? Basically, America is importing a vast amount of cheap Chinese goods. US workers will demand far higher wages than their Chinese counterparts earn, yes. But that's what Trump is on about, the reduction of cheap imports, and the creation of manufacturing jobs in America. Yes, the goods will be more expensive if made in America, but consumers might simply have to accept that. 

Who knows, the creation of new manufacturing jobs in America might generate votes for Trump, even though some people are going to be angry at the more expensive prices.

A trade war between America and China ?  Who is going to be hurt more ? I think China will be hurt more. China already has a giant monthly trade surplus with America, a massive trade war will simply reduce the Chinese surplus ?  As in, put simply, if China and America stop trading with each other (an extreme case, I know) well, there's going to be no American deficit with China. Surely ??

 

Again, creating jobs might not happen to any significant degree if plants are automated and products are built by robots. Also, will Americans be willing to perform the kind of repetitive task of assembling an iphone eight hours a day. I worked on a production line myself when I was young and I used to dread going to work after less than two weeks on the job.

Also, what's the point of creating new jobs if nobody wants to buy the product because it's just too expensive. Lots of people will just go on vacation to places like Thailand and buy the same phone for less than half what it costs in the US.

But if it comes to a trade war both sides will suffer, but it could also increase tensions between the two leading to a military confrontation if it gets out of hand. China may even decide to test Trump's resolve by invading Taiwan which the US guarantees the safety of, or to increase its military presence on the Spratly Islands in the South China Seas which would underrmine US security interests in the area.

Trump needs to throw away his business thinking cap and start wearing that of a statesman. Running a business and running a country are two entirely different things.

6 minutes ago, Chicog said:

It seems the Chinese might actually be happy about this...

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

Very much so. In fact Japan is one of the countries which would have been part of the TTP deal had it gone through and may now look to other sources of investment such as with Russia for example: http://www.reuters.com/article/japan-russia-business-idUSL4N1DM4MH

13 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

But Trump also plans to put serious taxes on the Chinese imports entering America. China is a bit scared right now, China's manufacturing sector will be hit hard if Trump does actually put on the taxes.

 

It might not make any difference actually. One of Trump's 'promises' was to force Apple to move iPhone manufacturing to the US by imposing a 45% tariff on all Chinese imports. The problem here is that all the components which an iPhone is made of are manufactured in China. If the US wants to start manufacturing all those components instead it's going to double the cost of the phone at the very least. In that event Apple may simply decide to continue manufacturing the iphone in China and pay the 45% tax if the costs are lower and then hiking the price to consumer to cover the additional expense.

Even if they don't do that and move factories to the US instead, it'll still impact on the cost of the finished product unless US workers are prepared to do the job for the same wages their Chinese counterparts earn. Will consumers be willing to pay an extra $300 for an iPhone made in the US d'you think?

Also, China has promised a tit-for-tat response if Trump does go ahead with punitive import tariffs. That'll mean US exports to China will suffer the same fate. China has also stated all Boeing orders will be switched to Airbus which will hurt US aircraft industry and imports of US soya beans and rice will cease entirely. Food for thought if you'll pardon the pun. 

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

Ah yes, Europe that country that was the first to sign on to the TPP.

Europe is currently negotiating a deal with the US called the TTIP: nothing to do with the TTP which only concerns the Asia-Pacific region. 

Also, Europe is a continent, not a country.

12 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Anything that upsets the nobs in Brussels is good news afaic. 

You're thinking of the TTIP. That's not the same as the TTP which only concerns the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715

But the US withdrawing from the treaty will be music to Chinese ears who will happily take over where the US left off.

2 hours ago, Andrew65 said:

Applicants must either earn a monthly salary of at least 100,000 baht or have more than 3 million baht in their bank account, which cannot be withdrawn within the first year after receiving the visa. They must also have health insurance that covers hospital stays and provides at least USD$10,000 in annual coverage

 

Visa holders will still have to check in every 90 days with the Bureau of Immigration, Athisit said

 

Yes, that last sentence is rather amusing. So in spite of bringing all this wealth into the country, Thailand will still treat you like a criminal and expect you to report your whereabouts every 90 days.

If you've got that kind of cash to splash around I can think of several countries with a pleasant climate who will welcome you without all the restrictions that Thailand imposes.

33 minutes ago, Thaiwrath said:

 

Not in the least.

Once people know the circumstances, they will get ridiculed, just as you would have been when you were a kid, had the same circumstances arisen.

I agree with your point of view absolutely. School bullying seems to be on the increase now and with the advent of social media, the children these two individuals produce, or even adopt are likely to be victims of both physical and psychological harm once the word gets around about who their parents are.

So as much as I wish this 'couple' a happy relationship together, I'd advise them to forget the idea of having kids.

19 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

 

I actually read the article. That's what I always do if I reply. If I missed something, bad on me.

In the article it nowhere implies that the authorities did it in any relevance to man made global warming. It was totally made up by the poster.

 

Regarding your claim: "Global warming is irreversible".

I won't nail you on this claim by asking you: Why do you know this for a fact?

 

As I already mentioned, the Globalists are in panic mode. All I ask you for is one or two years to convince yourself that "global warming" has stopped and is reversing. Just don't panic. See it for yourself - And start questioning so-called "authorities".

Man made climate change is a hoax. The global climate is already about to cool down.

You can stick your head in the sand and listen to the pundits who try to proffer the idea that global warming isn't reversible and that it's all one big hoax. But all the evidence suggests otherwise.

You obviously don't want to accept the mountains of scientific evidence which is freely available and easily found using Google or any other search engine and that's your prerogative.

But just as a matter of interest, what are you basing your own ideas on that global warming isn't taking place?

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

they are trying to figure out how to profit from the act of removing them.

Apparently the rods which would have been copper clad were driven into the sand to a depth of at least 2.5m so that electrical equipment could be grounded and used safely. See the 4th paragraph under the heading "Suggested improvements" in this link: http://www.fao.org/3/contents/7783bdd4-fc2b-52bb-99cb-2f0c5553550b/AB753e00.htm#ch3.2.2

I've seen articles in news media of copper wire being nicked in Thailand so all that needs to happen is to let potential thieves know that there are six copper clad rods sitting in the sand waiting for some enterprising individuals to come dig them up.

1 hour ago, Andreas2 said:

 

I agree, burning coal (without adequate filtration) is definitely a major factor contributing to POLLUTION.

 

You presumably didn't read the Bloomberg report I linked to. But I assume you know that burning coal produces carbon dioxide which accumulates in the upper atmosphere trapping heat and accelerating global warming. Here's another link for you which explains the mechanism: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html

What Trump doesn't seem to understand is that global warming is irreversible. He might think it's a hoax now, but may come to his senses at a later date. What the environmental impact may be by then is anybody's guess but it certainly won't be favourable.

14 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

The issue is not about whether global warming is a Chinese hoax or not. It's about whether global warming is happening or not, and if it is, is it caused by burning coal.

 

Is Trump right when he reckons that burning less coal will not help planet earth ?
Let's say that burning coal is actually slowly killing planet earth. I think lots of people simply don't care. I mean, almost none of us will still be around when it gets really bad.

 

Burning coal is definitely a major factor contributing to global warming. Beijing, one of the worst polluted cities in the world is now taking the step of closing all of its coal fired power stations in an attempt to reduce pollution.

But Trump promised coal miners new jobs as part of his election campaign so I guess he feels obliged to reopen a few coal fired power stations in spite of all the evidence that burning fossil fuels contributes to air pollution and to global warming.

I fear for the future of the planet with this lunatic running the asylum.

Maybe it's some kind of local promotion. Buy two pieces of fish and get a free rat.

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, has German defense spending reached the 2 percent level yet?

http://www.dw.com/en/von-der-leyen-dubious-about-natos-2-percent-rule/a-17907143

 

And is the size of Germany's active armed service members anywhere near the treaty limit of 370,000?

Probably not, but don't forget that NATO came to the aid of the US after 9/11 and over 1,000 NATO soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

Also, the US likes to play the role of the world policeman and in that respect it should be prepared to contribute the largest portion of the NATO budget and not complain just because other poorer countries haven't met their budget targets.

On 11/19/2016 at 2:41 AM, robblok said:

just give up on Nato no wars have been fought in Europe in ages

I think you're forgetting the Bosnia War of 1992-1995 in which NATO was also involved in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_intervention_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

As for th idea of disbanding NATO I think that would be a grave mistake. It acts as a deterrent to the Russian Federation's ambitions to expand its sphere of influence which is especially significant in the present climate.

19 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 

Not so.  Germany's current troop levels are way below the 370,000 ceiliingg. Active personnel total 180,000.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=germany

 

 

And it spends way too little on maintaining its equipment.

." A parliamentary report leaked to the German press last month and obtained by the Washington Post detailed the shocking state of disrepair of Germany’s military hardware. Only one of its four submarines is operational. Only 70 out of its 180 GTK Boxer tanks are fit for deployment. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/germany-military-hardware-disrepair-exposure

 

Your link is almost three years old. A lot has happened since then and Germany is upgrading its armed forces: http://www.janes.com/article/63277/german-puma-aifv-production-ramps-up

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I bet the EU can't wait. Another committee to the already bureaucratic EU. More lunches and dining out. Who will be fitting for the bill I wonder?

What the EU is trying to eradicate is human trafficking and labour exploitation in the Thai fishing industry. These two go hand-in-hand with unregulated fishing.

Without the current administration's cooperation Thailand would have faced a total ban on fish exports to the EU: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-extends-yellow-card-on-thai-fishing-exports/

13 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Ukraine is not part of NATO.

Otherwise the Treaty would have required all other members to have come to Ukraine's defence.

 

Europe depends on Russian gas, so their hands, to a great extent, were and still are tied.

Europe gets 30% of its gas from the Netherlands, but is still reliant on Russian gas to a great degree.

Given that oil prices continue to hover well below a level which can be considered to be profitable for Russia, turning off the tap to its gas exports would mean cutting itself off from considerable proportion of its income.

On 11/19/2016 at 2:01 AM, NeverSure said:

The US has major naval and air bases in Germany with lots of personnel and hardware. Germany spends next to nothing on defense as a result

The fact that Germany doesn't spend much on defence has nothing to do with the presence of US forces on its territory, but rather because of the restriction imposed on the country by the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" imposed on them at the end of World War II.

Among other things, Germany's armed forces are restricted to a maximum 370,000 personnel of which 345,000 in the army.

Although the US maintains four air bases in Germany, it doesn't have any naval units stationed there according to the map in second link in Craigt3365 post.

2 hours ago, ChrisY1 said:

Well....I'm pretty sure that the Chinese built a wall.....no roads.....just snow in the winter and desert in the summer!

Maybe Prayut can copy the Chinese design and then use it as a tourist attraction: "The Great Wall of Thailand".