TimTang

13 hours ago, syncmaster7 said:

so its a case of a stolen fake passport?who would report a stolen fake passport?

I would imagine that the passport was legit before it was lost or stolen. It then became fake after it was altered.

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

You don't seem to get it. It's not about the fact that the earth is on a rebound from the Ice age is is getting warmer. It's about the rate of change. To follow your line of reasoning, , there is no significant difference between an interest rate of 1 percent and an interest rate of 25%.

"It depends on what the meaning of is is" Bill Clinton

You must be a big Clinton fan.

I think the best answer to all our problem would be that all of us just drive electric cars, use electric to heat our houses and not really be too concerned where the electricity is actually coming from.

8 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

I find this idea that the ice will be gone by 2040 hard to believe. 

  I lived in the high Arctic for 2 years. We had to measure the thickness once a week,using  an auger.. It was 10  to 12 feet thick. Not all measuring is done by satellite We lived in the most northern area ice breakers go to in the world.The ice breaker usually had a 2 week window in August when it could break through and deliver her goods and get out before  it would be frozen in.

  In my humble opinion we do have global warming but the Arctic ice will be here long after 2040.

OK...but the issue is...is global warming a bad thing? The Vikings used to grow grapes to make wine on Greenland, which is now basically a chunk of ice. In all human history global warming periods were the most peaceful and prosperous periods but now we're being told that we're evil and must pay taxes for our sins for all the damage we've done to our planet. The people that are perpetuating this evil agenda want us all dead or be paying exorbitant rates for what little energy we can afford. They hate that we can drive around in cars and survive in our heated houses even though it's freezing outside. The Globalist want us DEAD. They want an Earth with 500 million total population where they rule and live comfortably while the rest slave to comfort them. That means they have to kill 6.5 BILLION people for that to happen. I don't want to be around when that happens. The global warming scam is just an initial attempt to get rid of a few billion through energy deprivation. The ones on this forum promoting it are just useful idiots. When tyranny rules they're always the first to be executed. If they're willing to commit treason against their own civilisation then they can't be trusted in any newly created civilisation. It's funny how they never seem to get that yet they always call US idiots.

31 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I suggest you go back are re-read what I wrote re; earth moving.  I didn't mention continental drift in my question & choices of answers.  You make an interesting point though.   

 

Still; getting back to the original premise:   Deniers thinking people are so insignificant, that they cannot have any effect on climate.  

It's not believable any more than believing Saddam's torching of all the oil wells in Kuwait had no effect on air or water quality around the Persian Gulf.

 

I was living in Al Khobar when Saddam torched the oil wells and I would be the first to say that "YES it effected air quality around the Persion Gulf." It didn't effect the water quality though. I'm not sure how you put that in there. I was approximately 300Km south from where it happened.  I can attest, it was bad, we knew when it happened but it went away. It didn't change the climate, I can assure you of that because I lived there for another year. I was actually THERE, so what point were you trying to make?

57 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Abnormal climate effect , so a bit like the melting ice in the Artic and the arrival of more ice in the Antartic .

Actually the melting of ice in the Arctic and the arrival of more ice in the Antarctic is NORMAL...not Abnormal. It's typically cyclic as with most climate changes.

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Polar bears are having a tough time.  They could be extinct in the not-too-distant-future.  They're supremely adapted to frigid climate.  Because of GW (yes, I still use the old nomenclature), they're having a tough time doing what they're adapted to doing:  hunting on ice floes to catch seals.

They can't go much further north.  

And swimming 450 to 500 miles?!   That's a long way!   It's very tiring for a hairy mammal to swim long distances.  It's sad if she has to swim that far to try and find food.   I've seen photos of polar bears which are so thin, they look like they may not make it through the night. 

Where are you from? I live in Canada and believe me there is no shortage of Polar bears. I would kill the first bastard that came near me because they are HUMAN EATERS. If there was any shortage of polar bears we would be the first to know. Where are you getting your information from. The Canadian government tracks their population and there is no reason for concern. If I came across a polar bear I'd be eating polar bear steaks, burgers, and sausages for the rest of the winter.  You are being manipulated by the leftwing media. 

"I've seen photos of polar bears which are so thin, they look like they may not make it through the night." That's really unusual because polar bears live FOR EVER! YES... that's true, they live for millions of years and if they could speak?...what stories they could tell. 

Did it ever occur to you that polar bears get old and die; just like HUMANS?

29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And I'm sure you will provide evidence to back up your claim.

Really?...You actually believe that spec?...you haven't actually researched where it came from and why it's BULL$HITE? 

You continue to believe...that's OK...we sympathise.

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once again, it's time to tell the tale of Richard Muller. Muller is an eminent physicist who questioned the the scientific basis of the contention that temperatures were warming. Among other things, he didn't believe that climate scientists were adequately accounting for the heat island effect. Denialists were thrilled to have a potential ally and generously financed him to assemble a dream team of scientists and statisticians to review the temperature data to see if it was unfairly skewed. There was lots of anticipation among the denialists and lots of articles looking forward to their vindiciation. And the results of his research? He conclusively proved that climate scientists had got it all wrong and global temperatures were not increasing at all! The denialists were right after all! 

Just kidding. Actually, his exhaustive study exactly matched what climate scientists had been saying all along. Their measurements were correct. The global climate was warming.

Here's an excerpt from a piece he wrote for the lay public:

"Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

Oddly enough, most, if not all, of those articles and blog posts celebrating Richard Mueller and the imminent triumph of the denialists have disappeared from the web.

As soon as you use the word "denialist" I refuse to debate with you. If you were debating the weight of an electron with a scientist and were confident that you had confirmed the TRUE mass, would you use ad hominem insults to address anyone that didn't agree with you? Or would you debate the subject like a gentleman with the understanding that you or both of you might be wrong?

10 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year."

That just is not a fact.

 

"If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice."

And that is a million miles away from any truth or accuracy!  Near 100% of whom?

He's just extrapolating from the oft quoted "97% of all Climate Scientist agree that humans are creating Global Warming". The problem is that when you study the report they often refer to it actually amounts to 3%.

The only thing I can't argue with is Obama. He said the science is SETTLED! So that's hard to rebut coming from a man that said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; Period. If you like your heath plan, you can keep your health plan; Period". I mean REALLY...Obama wouldn't LIE about something THAT important; would HE?

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Infections have been happening for millions of years, ....but that doesn't mean that you don't treat & dress a wound.  Animals have been attacking people for millions of years, .....does that mean you don't protect yourself if a dog attacks you?

 

re; human activity:   what, in your sage opinion, is the cause of giant thick clouds of yellow smog over every Chinese city, and most other cities worldwide?  Are they collective toad belches?  ....farts popping out of the ground?

I'm in total agreement with you in this matter. I've been in Beijing during the winter and have witnessed the unacceptable levels of pollution that are from manufacturing plants and huge apartment complexes which burn coal and spew smoke through simple chimneys with no scrubbers or any form of filtering what so ever. This type of behaviour is unacceptable for a county that claims to be the future world power.

On the other hand...do you think it's wise to punish ALL WESTERN SOCIETIES with huge taxes that make warming you home more expensive than rent or even mortgage payments? Both India and China have plans of building COAL fired plants that per/year are more than ALL coal fired plants in every western country combined. Coal plants in the west are very clean compared to those in India or China and by closing those in the west mean that the coal will be sold to them to burn with no pollution control what so ever. I could go on about Nuclear but you people HATE everything but the BIRD KILLERS...Solar and Wind!

9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The activists run round crying disaster at all turns, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn't support their claims.

 

The IPCC acknowledges: "Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased by 2.9% per decade over the 1978-1996 period; sea ice has thinned, and there are now more melt days per summer. Sea-ice extent in the Nordic seas has decreased by 30% over the past 130 years."

 

It then continues: "It is not yet clear whether changes in sea ice of the past few decades are linked to a natural cycle in climate variability or have resulted explicitly from global warming."

 

Of course, yelling "denier" at everyone is much easier for the activists than actually doing some research....

The other problem is that the REAL Climatologists that have provided any evidence that contradicts the Globalist Climate Change Agenda are now working as Pizza delivery boys because their careers have been destroyed for daring to tell the truth.

Notice also how labelling someone with an Ad hominem like DENIER makes any logical debate on the subject REDUNDANT.

Notice also that every Global Warmist on this forum instantly refers to any one that dares even QUESTION the theory as stupid, an idiot, child killer, antiEarth...and it just goes on and on. They are even considering jail terms for those that don't agree with their hypothesis. 

I would think that something this important SHOULD  have people debating on BOTH sides of the argument when it involves taxing people into poverty and destroying economies that rely on existing energy sources to maintain manufacturing, light up their cities, or even provide heating so they don't FREEZE TO DEATH!

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If you had a choice between an savings account that paid 1 percent interest and an account that paid 25 percent interest, it's clear that you would just flip a coin to choose because with both accounts your money would grow. But those of us who understand the relevance of rates know that your money would grow a lot faster in one of those accounts. The same goes for climate. The natural rate of temperature increase post ice age rebound is well documented. And so is the unprecedentedly  recent rate of temperature increase. The ice age rebound offers no clue as to why the rate has so dramatically changed.

"...the unprecedentedly  recent rate of temperature increase." Please inform me how you interpret NO INCREASE in temperature for the last 17 years to be an "unprecedentedly recent rate of temperature increase"? Where is your DATA coming from?

2 minutes ago, wadsy said:

I was just going to post the same thing bud. 

So you're a simple minded idiot like me? When will we learn?

/sarc

22 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Ok, here I go again.  It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old - what happens when he tips over his glass of milk.

 

We're not talking about climate for the past 4.5 billion years.   The climate issue at hand pertains to now and the ensuing 100 to 300 years.  A tiny fraction of the age of Earth.

 

People are overpopulating this planet.  They're living everywhere possible - even on landfills and in swamps and toxic zones.  In some cities, there are over 25,000 people per sq.Km.

 

1/4 of mankind is living within a meter of sea level, including half of Thailand.  A warmer planet = melting ice.  Melting ice = higher sea levels.  A warmer planet also = bigger storms and increased desertification, but don't let all that give you an aneurysm. Perhaps I'm putting out too much info for a simple mind to comprehend.   

It would be a waste of time to try and convince you that "Global Warming" now called "Climate Change" (GEE What's up with that) is a Globalist SCAM, so here's a little experiment you can do on your own. Get a measuring cup and fill it half way with water, now place enough ice cubes in until it reaches a full cup, now wait for the ice to melt. You will notice that there is now less than one cup of water. WHY? Because ICE displaces more volume than water. If both the Arctic and Antarctic melted the sea levels would go DOWN not UP.

There has been NO rise in average global temperature for 17 years and storms have actually decreased not increased so I'd rather stick with my simple mind than you complicated Bull$it.

On 24/10/2017 at 5:58 PM, Samui Bodoh said:

And all the while there are people who do not believe that Climate Change is real.

 

Idiots.

 

Stinking idiots.

A significant warming of the Arctic was noted as the U.S Monthly Weather Review contained a report from the US Consul in Bergen, Norway, saying “The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic , all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.”

The article goes on to say “Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact so little ice has never before been noted. … Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognisable. … At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.”

This significant warming of the Arctic was noted in 1922.

Of course Climate Change is REAL. It's been happening for millions of years. Collecting taxes, and scaring children aren't going to change that fact. Follow the MONEY and you will know the TRUTH!!!!!!

26 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Thats funny....Ive always found thailand to be pretty safe...even staggering around dead drunk at 5 am.

 

Then again, Im a 2 week millionaire and don;t stay long enough to build a strong base of enemies.

If you're a millionaire it's highly unlikely you'll develop enemies. You're more likely to find new friends. Hey!!! I like you already! Let's rent a yacht, grab a dozen go-go girls, stock up the bar and pretend to go fishing. I know a place that has Styrofoam Marlins  to legitimise the trip.

21 minutes ago, InMyShadow said:

30 minutes ago, TimTang said:

WOW!!!...OK...I got everything up until you don't agree with the warm fuzzy Thailand scenario. Then you went into some sort of violence that I'm not familiar with.
 
I can tell by your post that you are intelligent and you have something to say. Sad to say my intelligence must be limited because I'm having difficulty understanding. If you could clarify maybe you can knock my IQ up a couple of points.

Forcibly sold to. You get that right? What else you struggling with?

I don't get it and I'm not struggling with anything. Is there some sort of secret code I'm not aware of?

It simply doesn't make sense. I claim naivety. I prefer to never pretend to know something I do not. How can one learn ANYTHING otherwise? 

15 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

I think you meant to write: "...you might fancy a lady that catches your meat..." which adds a little more intrigue to your comment in parentheses!

I did actually catch my spelling error and corrected it but I like your take on the elevated intrigue. We'd probably be good beer drinking buddies.

16 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

BK is the capital of scams (for me, cannot talk for Pat as left quickly) It attracts the worst from other parts of the country, some serious non educated scammers waiting to meet you day and night there.

There may be some SCAMS happening in Bangkok but you really have to be stupid to fall for them. I

've never been taken  in by any scam and I lived there for 18 years. I don't care what country you go to there are going to be scam artists. Most scams focus on GREED. If you are a greedy person that thinks you might make a quick buck from some sort of investment and it doesn't pan our; Whoooops...who saw that coming?

8 minutes ago, Songlaw said:

Unless the "violent outbursts" were "Thai on Thai," odds are that it was (possibly unwittingly) incited by a farang. I have never witnessed anyone (save the occasional random bag-snatch, etc.) who was doing the right thing given an ounce of sh*t, for any reason anywhere in this country. Is it a paradise full of warm fuzzies? Of course not, but if you are even remotely self-aware, the biggest fear you will likely ever face is that of being ignored. For those who might argue, being "forcefully and serially sold to" is not generally considered a PTSD-inducing level of violence, so save your breath.

WOW!!!...OK...I got everything up until you don't agree with the warm fuzzy Thailand scenario. Then you went into some sort of violence that I'm not familiar with.

I can tell by your post that you are intelligent and you have something to say. Sad to say my intelligence must be limited because I'm having difficulty understanding. If you could clarify maybe you can knock my IQ up a couple of points.

14 minutes ago, wvavin said:

No! It is definitely not the Thais fault. These dangers are caused by foreigners. Thais are very peaceful Buddhists.

Yes it's true that a majority of Thais that abide by the teachings of Buddha are peaceful people. There are many that don't give a shit about Buddha or any supreme being what so ever just like any country.

You should still be careful. There are many out there (Thais or not Thais) that may pretend to be righteous  but are not. Just stay on your toes while not being judgemental. This is just a kind warning.

7 minutes ago, Shaunduhpostman said:

Bangkok is not that dangerous. For me the issue is being beaten, threatened just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in any major US city, I would expect much of Europe is the same. I have never in 20 years in Thailand been through what is routine yearly assaults of some sort, general abuse from people on the streets on public transpo etc, in American cities. I do not have to face situations on a monthly basis where I have to go into paranoia mode in Bangkok.  I do not have to have to ask people where things are sketchy and best totally avoided in Thailand. If you don't do that when visiting a major American city, then it may well be your last visit period.

I agree with you. There are occasional incidents in Bangkok where people act inappropriately but generally speaking you're less likely to encounter or be a victim of violence. I've witnessed violent outbursts, but I was never involved or have been the recipient (thankfully).

13 minutes ago, InMyShadow said:

I would rather have my brief case handcuffed to my arm in Pattaya than be forced to live in that 3rd world ghetto in Cambodia.

Yes...I know when I'm licked....

all over.