Globalhot

I think there is confusion on this thread about what "quality" means in the context of demography.

Basically, society can opt to have as many children as possible (quantitative approach).

Or, it can opt to have the amount of children necessary to maximize the probability that each child will have a quality lifestyle (qualitative approach).

Poor women, in general, have too many children. The family economic pie has to be divided up in smaller pieces because of this. And each child gets less: attention, money, food, opportunity to attend a good school, etc.

This pattern breeds poverty. It is a culture of poverty.

The alternative is what most rich people do: have few children and invest more in each.

Quality, in this sense, is not a bad thing. It is a good thing because each child is given more opportunities to succeed in life.

Promoting population growth is, in my view, insane.

Yep, that's a huge difference. Maybe something to do with the Closing Time in Cambodia?

boooo...

He is a risk taker.

His voice (which I like) is about as far away from what Asian's like as you can get.

Asian's like sweet, sickening sweet, voices.

I would love to see him because he will likely not be able to tour forever.

Waiting on a Miracle.

<br>

<br>Personally I dont believe that short skirts are the problem here. If they were then maybe we should encourage the girls, women to wear burkhas, like the Muslims.<br>

<br>..correct, it's the long legs that are the problem..<br>

Are old ladies who are frustrated that they are no longer young the ones behind this?

Or, are men who are frustrated the young girls are no longer finding them attractive behind this?

I would think they would have more serious problems to attend to like MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN ACADEMIA!

3.8% ... and that INCLUDES the burning of fossil fuels. (Duh, Doh)!

Which one are you? JR, Ms. Ellie, Jock, or Bobbie? Maybe RickBradford in disguise

My answer: So what?

Look up the word sequestered.

Put it together with the release of carbon from burning fossil fuels.

See how that increases CO2 in the atmosphere and heating beyond that which would have occurred naturally without the addition of formerly sequestered carbon.

We have broken out of a natural carbon cycle due to human activities.

It is actually simple to comprehend and not in debate by any scientist I know of.

Back to Thailand and the subject: Human induced (largely via the use of fossil fuels and release of CO2) global warming threatens Thailand in at least two ways:

1) acidification of the Gulf leading to a massive decline in fish stocks and possible collapse of the fisheries industries, and

2) flooding along the coast--especially problematic for Bangkok (massive economic impact) and beach towns (will hurt tourism for sure).

What else is likely to happen?

What about more and increasingly severe droughts and water shortages?

Agriculture?

Migration from other surrounding countries (environmental refugees)?

Political implications?

<br>

<br>Rising heat levels drives up C02 levels...FACT!   So if it's not our man-made C02 emmisions driving up heat levels what's causing it? Natural cycles maybe!<br><br>Oh and your lucky if humans are responsible for as much as 10% of C02 levels in the atmosphere..The largest contributor would be the oceans<br>

<br><br>I believe the figure is 3.8% ... something like that. Humans emit 3.8% of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere every year.<br>

Breathe in (oxygen) and breathe out (carbon dioxide), that is what many organisms on the planet do (duh, doh!).

There are many NATURAL processes that emit GHGs.  Cows and termites farting (duh doh!).

The main issue is the recent release of formerly sequestered carbon in the atmosphere.

That is not natural and relates to our reliance of fossil fuels for energy.

Along with other GHGs (e.g, methane), the release of formerly sequestered carbon is causing CO2 to rise way beyond "natural levels."

That is causing global warming.

That is a scientific fact that is not in debate by scientists.

Global warming is leading many climate problems, social problems, economic problems, etc.

Back to Thailand and the subject: Human induced (largely via the use of fossil fuels and release of CO2) global warming threatens Thailand in at least two ways:

1) acidification of the Gulf leading to a massive decline in fish stocks and possible collapse of the fisheries industries, and

2) flooding along the coast--especially problematic for Bangkok (massive economic impact) and beach towns (will hurt tourism for sure).

What else is likely to happen?

What about more and increasingly severe droughts and water shortages?

Agriculture?

Migration from other surrounding countries (environmental refugees)?

Political implications?

Best city for what? Traffic fetish? Air pollution fetish?

Those of us who are smart enough to get an avatar right have established that human induced global warming is real, and that it is causing negative changes on many fronts.

Human induced (largely via the use of fossil fuels and release of CO2) global warming threatens Thailand in at least two ways:

1) acidification of the Gulf leading to a massive decline in fish stocks and possible collapse of the fisheries industries, and

2) flooding along the coast--especially problematic for Bangkok (massive economic impact) and beach towns (will hurt tourism for sure).

What else is likely to happen?

What about more and increasingly severe droughts and water shortages?

Agriculture?

Migration from other surrounding countries (environmental refugees)?

Political implications?

What was actually said will remain a mystery unless someone can get hold of the original Thai statement.

Very true. The whole article seems poorly translated. E.g. 'qualitative rather than quantitative children' yet the remainder of the article seems to stress quantity over quality. 'Here's a tax break and more support - just have some kids, please!' The sad part is incentives will likely increase the birth rate of the poorer classes. The recent college grad trying to get her career started is unlikely to think it worthwhile to get herself knocked up for a temporary incentive. (I know a young lady who hides the fact she has a child from potential employers because she believes it lowers her chances of being hired. I don't know if it's true, but I believe it.) So, along with tax breaks and incentives, they should look at the consequences of encouraging the uneducated and welfare classes to produce more children.

But that's just my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it.

Good post! The article was odd because it used "qualitative" and then went on with a "quantitative" argument.

Tax breaks and incentives should be given to: 1) single people who do not have children, 2) married couples who do not have children or one only.

After one, they should be taxed..........more children, more taxes.

People should be encouraged with financial incentives to have fewer, not more children.

Looks good and I'm sure they taste good as well.

I've never had a chilli burger... what is the patty meat ? is it pork or beef ?

Where is the place and how much $$$$$$$

Burgers look fantastic.

JR get a new hobby, how many times have you been banned anyways?

Wow........another psycho. Hello, Ms. Ellie?

No wonder your posts are off the wall

I am new but I think I can put both of you on ignore and allow you to engage in your psychotic ramblings.

Thank you for letting the world know what type of people the "skeptics" are.

Really, get some help.

Come on JR, it is clearly you. The same illogical ramblings, the same blind acceptance of any pro warmist propaganda that you stumble upon.

You've been rumbled. Time to retire this account and make a new one.....like you have a number of times before.

Another psycho on this thread!

Is this one Jock? This is too much to believe.

I can only assume RichBradford, Cannuckmuck and TeaTree are the same person.

I did see three straitjackets for sale at a used clothing store in Bangkok (any connection?).

RB, you really need help with your JR fixation. What you are doing is psychotic.

Whatever, I now have all three of you (or is it only one?) on ignore.

Perhaps if none of you have anything to say, you should leave.

I really miss old fashioned delis like back home.

I remember living near an Italian part of town.

There was a mom and pop Italian deli there.

It was great just to walk in and see the foods and smell the foods.

They also had a small table (two I think) where you could sit down and eat something.

But they wanted most customers to come in, buy, and go.

Then (different topic) there are all of the wonderful sandwich delis: pastrami, corned beef, reuben, smoked ham, Italian sausage, etc.

I have never seen such a place in all of Asia.

JR get a new hobby, how many times have you been banned anyways?

Wow........another psycho. Hello, Ms. Ellie?

No wonder your posts are off the wall

I am new but I think I can put both of you on ignore and allow you to engage in your psychotic ramblings.

Thank you for letting the world know what type of people the "skeptics" are.

Really, get some help.

Seriously, you need to seek out help for your psychosis.

Your obsession with JR is more than strange.

In fact, it is the strangest series of posts I have ever seen on any forum.

I think you are losing it.

Can you see my avatar like all other poster can?

Let me help you: Globalhot

^^

Thanks, JR, either asinine stupidity or or patronizing garbage would have been sufficient, both is surely gilding the toadstool.

Neither the sinking of Bangkok nor fish stocks in the Gulf of Thailand have any relation to the fantasy you like to call 'global warming induced climate change'.

Bangkok's problems stem from the well-documented mass building on spongy under-soil and the ongoing pumping of groundwater, Fisheries suffer from overfishing, pollution, habitat degradation, the usual problems found worldwide.

No need for any climate bogeymen, unless you have some small children you want to frighten.

Thank you "Bobbie." Seriously, your posts with references to JR are strange beyond imagination (psychotic). I think you should get some help.

Humanity is digging it's own grave because of greed!

Interesting statement that I fully agree with.

As stated earlier, there is no debate about the cause of global warming and associated climate change: humans acting like insane creatures.

Part of that insanity is unrestrained greed. Of course, the greed of the fossil fuel industry is a huge part of the problem (and the politicians that are supporting it).

But most of us are also to blame because we take far too much from the earth than we need.

In scientific circles, our ideas (how we think about the world and our position in it) are being introduced as part of the problem of climate change.

There is a destructive psychology underpinning the problem.

We can see it on many of the previous posts (not yours) reflected here in the form of total denial of the problem, an strange unwillingness to take the time to understand the scientific data or accept it, and paranoia.

Clearly destroying that which allows life to exist on this planet is an insane act.

But we are, once again, getting off topic.

We have established that global warming/climate change will negatively impact Thailand in at least two ways: flooding of low-lying areas like Bangkok; acidification of the Gulf and loss of fisheries.

What else?

Still no answer to the question posed by WhyBother.

And no scientific response to anything that has been posted.

You must have a PhD in "fact distortion."

Totally boring and

The results were part of the HIV Vaccine Trial Phase III on 16,402 Thai volunteers in Chonburi and Rayong provinces. Half of the volunteers were given the RV 144 vaccine in 2006, and the other half received placebos.

Of those who got placebos, 74 became infected, while only 51 of those who got the vaccines did.

Well I admit it's been decades since I studied epidemiology and statistics but those results just don't seem significant to me.

Line up ten people who took RV 144: 7 out of 10 get infected; 3 do not. I think that is what these data can be reduced to.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Is the glass half full or half empty?

It is a start and that is good news after four decades of this horrible (and very preventable) disease.

It could lead to a more effective vaccine down the road.

There have been global warming events in the past. Just because a few theories are ruled out does not leave ONLY human causes. There is an enormous amount that we don't know about the sun and its effects on the earth, and there are many other cyclic events that we know little about.

Certainly humans are putting more CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere, but there are other sources besides volcanic and asteroid events. For example, methane from permafrost areas.

There is still a lot that is not known - hence the debate.

As far as Thailand is concerned, rising sea levels would be the biggest issue. Bangkok is 60cm above sea level, so a small rise would see it under water (more than it already is at times). Where are you going to move 10 million people if Bangkok is under water?

Methane, yes, and that is why I wrote GHGs. In fact, as the permafrost melts and is reduced in size there is less heat reflected out to space, more heat absorbed, more exposed permafrost, more methane, etc.

The sun's energy has been tracked with an extremely high degree of precision and has been ruled out as the main cause of the abrupt rise in temperature, especially over the past 30 years.

There may be other cyclic events we don't know about. Certainly humans do not know everything about their place in the universe. But the Milankovich cycle, the best know as it relates to climate change on earth, is not the cause of the rapid rise in temperature over the past 100 and especially 30 years.

That aside, sea level rise is a real issue and a good addition to this thread. More heating is causing more evaporation. This will lead to more rainfall (most likely patterns and timing will be disrupted) and more flooding from the runoff.

More heating is causing thermal expansion of the oceans. The combination of river run off and the Gulf rising will be dramatic and devastating in terms of Thailand's economy.

Bangkok is also sinking because it sits on an aquifer that is being drained.

So three things are going to happen: 1) Bangkok will continue to sink, 2) river flooding will accelerate, and 3) the Gulf will rise.

So now we have acidification of the Gulf causing massive damage to the fisheries industries and businesses linked to it. And we have Bangkok flooding.

Of course, other areas will also be underwater. I expect Pattaya, Jomtien, Hua Hin, Phuket, etc., to lose much of their beaches in the future. That will not be good for tourism.

<snip>

It is understood (and definitely not under debate) that climate change is the result of human activities that are causing CO2 levels to rise along with temperature--leading to global warming and subsequently to climate change.

<snip>

"Climate change is the result of human activities" is exactly what the debate is about.

Global average temperatures are rising - no debate.

Ice sheets and glaciers are melting at a faster rate than they are forming - no debate.

Rising CO2 levels are causing global average temperatures to rise - mostly no debate ... other chemicals / particles in the atmosphere are also a cause.

Rising CO2 levels cause ocean acidification - no debate.

Climate change is affecting many countries (including Thailand) in different ways - no debate.

Whether all of this is caused by humans, and whether humans can actually stop it - That's the DEBATE.

I agree with what you said above with one exception: part of the last sentence.

The "changes" over the last 30 years are not due to the sun--no debate.

The "changes" over the last 100 years are not due to the Milankovich cycle--no debate.

The "changes" over the last 30 years are not due to volcanic activity--no debate.

The "changes" over the last 30 years are not due to an asteroid colliding with the earth--no debate.

When all of the possible scenarios are accounted for in the models (and IPCC has done that), there is no option left: growing numbers of humans are using fossil fuels for energy and releasing massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, causing global warming (along with other GHGs), leading to climate change.

Other human activities are also causing warming (e.g., deforestation, agriculture and release of other GHGs, etc).

There does not appear to be any other variable that can account for the rapid rise in warming, especially over the past 30 years.

I agree, there is considerable debate about whether we can stop it before we pass a critical tipping point.

There is also debate about what to do about it, but most people agree we must reduce C02 emissions (and other GHGs) as spelled out in the IPCC reports, Kyoto Protocol, and UNFCC mandate.

I am curious about your opinion of the topic. How will Thailand be impacted by climate change?

I hadn't actually heard the phrase used before, but it makes some sense if you think about it.

On average, the globe is warming. This overall warming is causing some areas to get drier and some areas wetter, some areas to get hotter and some areas colder, and storms to get more severe - ie climates are changing.

That makes it "Global Warming induced Climate Change".

And it's pretty obvious that this IS happening.

Now, whether the global warming is caused by humans is a completely different debate.

I used the phrase as shorthand for what scientists mean when they say "climate change." I did that because a certain person was trying to give the impression that saying "climate change" was "hiding global warming." Total BS nonsense!

It is understood (and definitely not under debate) that climate change is the result of human activities that are causing CO2 levels to rise along with temperature--leading to global warming and subsequently to climate change.

Climate change is a type of shorthand. It is not meant to "hide global warming."

It is obvious they have no idea about the relationship between rising CO2 levels and ocean acidification. So, WhyBother..........why bother?

They still can't answer your simple question about evidence that the earth is undergoing a cooling trend over the past 100 years.

Why? Because it isn't and all the evidence points to the exact opposite: long term pattern of warming.

But enough of their nonsense and obvious attempts to create a straw man and divert attention away from the topic.

I am curious if any other posters can put forth other ways Thailand will likely be impacted global warming induced climate change due to human activities and associated release of sequestered carbon in the atmosphere (i.e., burning fossil fuels).

Clearly, the acidification of the oceans and its probable economic impact on Thailand's fisheries is a serious matter.

What else can Thailand look forward to?

You keep trying to prop up your version of a "straw man." In your case: The myth that there is a debate among scientists as to whether or not global warming induced climate change is real.

As stated, THERE IS NO DEBATE. You seem to be way behind the rest of the world on this issue.

The evidence in support of global warming can be traced way back to the turn of the century.

You might want to get up to speed by reading IPCC reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/ (that is complicated if you have no understanding of science)

To get an idea about what scientists and governments are doing to mitigate the impacts of global warming induced climate change go here:

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Now, back to the subject. I would like to focus, not on a non issue in the form of a straw man, but on how global warming induced climate change is and will impact Thailand.

As stated way back before we all got distracted by the straw man ploy, pH of the oceans is declining (acidification). This has, in the past, caused mass extinctions. The important point is that this took hundreds of thousands (actually much longer) of years to transpire.

Now we are accelerating the "normal cycle." The recent drop in pH that has taken place just over the past 100 years took over 100,000 to materialize in the past.

Check these links out:

http://www.springerl...5g2151l3nlt871/

http://www.skeptical...ion-events.html

Now, human-induced climate change is causing pH in the oceans to drop in what amounts to a blink of an eye in geological time.

Again, it is not change that is the problem; it is the pace of change (you really need to understand this point as you apparently do not).

Scientists are very concerned about this. The drop is happening because more and more CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans.

This drop negatively impacts calcium absorption and biochemistry of marine organisms (calcium is needed to form shells like you see on oysters).

In particular, it negatively impacts diatoms, marine micro-organisms that form the basis of the entire marine food chain.

If the diatoms become stressed and unable to properly metabolize calcium, a major tipping point will be crossed leading to a mass extinction event.

Thailand is surrounded on several sides by saltwater: Andaman Sea and Gulf of Thailand.

There are fishing villages all over that depend on fishing. There are restaurants and untold numbers of businesses that depend on fishing.

If the "event" happens, these people will suffer. It will be an economic catastrophe. And this is only one detrimental impact. There are many others.

It will happen in stages, most likely deformed shells and later reduced fish stocks and later still mass extinction.

The problems started prior to 2005.

So, the premise is false.

I started noticing serious problems right about the time Thaksin was elected.

Things changed after that, and not for the better.

What did you notice?

Good question. We all know corruption and consolidation of power and misuse of power goes way back in Thailand.

The country has always seemed like some feudal system with powerful people ruling various regions.

Anyway, what I saw was corruption rising to an unprecedented level in modern times.

I also saw the public change, embracing corruption as a way of life (anything goes to get a buck mentality).

Corruption became culturally ingrained and accepted--the country was choking on it.

I saw blatant illegal acts get ignored by the courts.

I saw the Thai people change and become far more materialistic and anti-foreigner than they were in the, say, 80s and 90s.

Basically, these were signs of Thai culture unraveling. It was like a certain person knew which thread to pull out that would unravel the tapestry of Thai culture.

I have not seen it get better since then (i.e., since the start of the Thaksin legacy).

I do, however, admire the current PM and view him as far better for Thai culture.

The problems started prior to 2005.

So, the premise is false.

I started noticing serious problems right about the time Thaksin was elected.

Things changed after that, and not for the better.

Where ever you copied your post from, I would still like to see a scientific report that says there has been cooling.

Whybother.......why bother? They can't answer you.

We both know they are totally wrong and are only attempting to confuse people with a cut and paste routine (boring).

Maybe we can discuss the subject a bit.

Back to Thailand and global warming induced climate change.

Normally I would not say that, I would just say climate change, but some of these posters are so unfamiliar with the scientific literature that they actually don't know that when one says "climate change" is it understood that human activities and global warming are causing it.

I think you mentioned the negative impact on the oceans. I followed that up with comments about ocean acidification and the possible collapse of the food chain.

That will probably take a long time to transpire, but the trend is down right scary.

Many scientists are seriously concerned about the possibility that more increases in CO2 will lead to more declines in pH, leading to very negative consequences for ocean creatures that depend on calcium for their structures.

If the diatoms are negatively impacted, the entire food chain will be negatively impacted.

Back to Thailand. This will have a major, negative impact on the fishing industry--jobs will be lost, exports will decline, sports fisheries will shut down, restaurants that depend on seafood will shut down, etc.

Is that what Thailand needs? I don't think so.