Tippaporn

Are you saying I shouldn't buy that fur coat today?

Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are perhaps two of the most influential and visible people behind the climate change hysteria. How can you, in good conscience, and as a vociferously vocal climate change believer, abandon two of your most recognised leaders of this cult? Are you distancing yourself from them only due to the negative exposure they've received? This statement couldn't be more disingenuous for it to be true one would need to know the precise temperature in the month of July for the past 120,000 years. The precise temperature, not the deduced or extrapolated or estimated temperature. And not just in a single location but in enough locations to show it to be global. To it's credit the statement does use "believe" and "might be" as qualifiers. To it's discredit by it's mere inclusion into the article it attempts to suggest the statement is indeed more factual than not. The fact that most climate change cultists run with this article as factual evidence supporting their beliefs is all the evidence one needs to know that there is no true objectivity amongst them as they in no way attempt to denounce the statement as being not factual. But there's more. Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive). Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof. Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real. Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus. No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments. If one wanted to explore in much greater detail the vast evidence that exists which shows the disingenuous nature of the climate change movement in so many various aspects it would require that one's eyes are kept open, e.g. maintaining strict objectivity, during such an investigation. I'll end it here as I'm restrained to staying on topic. As to predictions, placeholder, I understand that the failure of so many dire predictions to materialise to date are quite a sore spot for those who have been promoting and selling end-of-human-life disaster scripts. So it's not surprising that an effort is now being made to prove the great predictive ability of climate change climatologists in order to regain their credibility. Even if they don't succeed to any great degree there will always be a given number of Bud Lite drinkers. Regarding the data you and others put forth, placeholder, there always exists data to the contrary. To that end we could theoretically go on eternally exchanging data points and evidences and studies whilst refuting each other's evidence. To what end? I'll never be able to convince you or any other with data. You folks are already too heavily invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in your position that you have the "truth." At this point you couldn't reverse course even if you wanted to. I'll let this post be my single response to other's who have replied to me in recent days. @Danderman123 @heybruce @Bkk Brian

You forgot the "Humph!!"

Is this exit another "the boy who cried wolf" exit again?

Wasn't hard to guess, was it?

Clownish response tailored for the clownish world that's overtaking us. If you're going to make a joke it's a chicken that crosses the road, not a cat.

Are you averse to having an intelligent discussion? A fine, rational post by me asking multiple questions of you to which you answer none, comment on nothing written, and reply with utter nonsense. Sometimes I truly wonder why I spend time here.

"your argument seems to be a logical fallacy." Good that you qualified your statement with "seems." "you're complaining that laws in the west are not for your safety . . . " Did you misquote me here? ". . . but then thailand is renowned for having dangerous roads." I'm sure you will vociferously disagree but dangerous is a relative term. Speed, for instance, is not inherently dangerous. “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” ― George Carlin Carlin understood the relativity of it. From one of my earlier posts, as I assume you hadn't read them. "Even if you are a Formuala 1 driver, there's way too many bad drivers on the roads." Do you trust yourself enough to keep you safe from bad drivers? Okay, that's a question for advanced souls. You can skip answering that one. Try this one. Does driving fast when conditions warrant it make one a bad driver? If I drive faster than you does that automatically define me as a maniac? A bad driver if I drive slower and am in front of you? "And the roads are way too busy with pedestrians/cyclists/tuk tuks/scooters for anyone to make a compelling argument that it's ok to drive fast." Have I made any such argument that it's okay to drive fast under any and all circumstances? Do you possess the common sense necessary to determine when it's okay to drive fast and when it's not? Would you claim that I don't use common sense when I drive? Or that I don't possess the common sense necessary to determine when it's okay to drive fast and when it's not?

You asked and I replied with rational thought. Response on the rational ideas?

That's quite a unique perspective, definitely slanted, but one that I hadn't heard before. Slanted in the sense that you question whether those who remark about relishing the freedom in Thailand are here because of true freedom or inconsiderate selfishness. The body of your post most definitely exposes your sentiment, and that is that, nah, these freedom loving posters aren't here because of true freedom. They're definitely here because they enjoy breaking laws. I find it fascinating how people's beliefs colour and form their perceptions of reality and they are usually completely unaware of the process of how their perceptions are shaped. For myself there is little I value more than freedom. I should add that there is much I value which rates as high. Ironically Asia was one of the last destinations I would have ever chosen if the trip was on my dime. I was sent here on a temporary job for 2-1/2 weeks. Now I've traveled to enough wonderful countries and wherever I've gone I've often fancied myself living there. But the attraction was never enough for me to actually make a move. Thailand, though, convinced me in a heartbeat that this was where I wanted to be. The number one attraction was the Thai people. The number two attraction was the freedom available here which in large measure had vanished over the previous 4 decades in the U.S. Largely due to the ever increasing number of laws prohibiting actions which one was earlier free to take. As a for instance, I was pleasantly surprised the very first time I was entertained by an extended Thai family and their friends with food and drink. As the alcohol ran down a young boy was collared by a family member, given some money and told to run down to the local store and buy some more beer. He might have been about 10 years old. Now I understood well that there was no harm in this and that no one was concerned that the boy would cop a bottle for himself. It simply wasn't part of the Thai culture. Now in any western country this would be highly illegal. But apparently not in Thailand. Which makes one question the absoluteness of laws. Or the justness of laws. Or the appropriateness of laws. I think most would agree that there are a great deal of unjust laws in the west. My sentiment has always been that if personal action intends and involves no harm to others then there should be no law prohibiting that action. Unfortunately, a good percentage of laws restricting freedoms that are passed in the west are always trumpeted and sold as being for "your safety." I suffer no guilty conscience breaking any of those laws. So, yes, it is all about me and my freedom. But that doesn't at all mean that the pursuit of my freedom must come at the expense of someone else. Am I selfish when it comes to my freedom. Absolutely. Selfishness is not inherently a bad thing, as you portray it, Lancelot. To tie it inextricably with inconsiderateness is faulty logic. As long as you do tie the two together in inseparable marriage you skew your perception.

I'm a fair minded reader so therefore I qualify to respond. Again, there are undeniable differences between men and women. Both mental and physical. Those differences, when mental, are not strict indicators of inferiority in intelligence. Rather, it would have more to do with the ways in which women process information versus men. One is not better or worse than the other. They are merely different. Given that then anyone can, if they so chose, deny that quite real differences exist. And in their denial they can also, if they chose, call anyone who recognises those differences a sexist. The fact that there are female CEOs, State governors, etc. is indeed an indication that females possess all of the attributes necessary to be successful in those roles. Yet at the same time it should be understood that it is not merely the intellect that is solely responsible for any success. Women also bring into play important feminine attributes which their counterparts do not either possess or possess in varying degrees. And so again, too, there is more to this issue than perhaps what you are currently able to see. It's a complex issue that should not be over simplified. So the "you can't have it both ways' argument becomes inapplicable and not relevant.

Now that smacks of a God complex. To even suggest that scientists are human, and therefore fallible, is sheer heresy. I say burn Hummin at the stake!!!

Try using some common sense. Anyone who makes the claim that this past July was the hottest in the last 120,000 years must know what the temperature was in every July over the last 120,000 years. Now I know science makes advances, granted ever so slowly, but this beggars belief, don't you think? And common sense would tell you that scientists are not Gods, despite the fact they attempt to convey the perception that they're infallible regarding their conclusions. If you wish to trust them implicitly and unquestioningly then that is your right, heybruce. But don't expect others to be as trusting. And certainly don't ridicule others simply because they don't immediately supplicate themselves at the feet of scientists. Specifically your group of scientists. For the consensus amongst scientists is not unanimous by a long shot. But I do understand that 'your' scientists are correct and all of the dissenting scientists are wrong and God has spoken.

Try using an analogy that's actually equivalent.

LOL. Danderman123, it's in the same link I provided which you yourself used to grab a quote from. Twice, I might add. There's a pretty graph showing that it's been relatively flat for a decade.

At least I think I'm making myself clear in my posts. State your confusion and I'll be happy to help you clear out any cobwebs.

It must be difficult to live in a world looking through a lens which interprets everything in terms of sexism. Not many are going to take up your banner, Jingthing, for not everyone sees the world through your lens. There's so much more to see.

I never did get heavily into chess though I love the game. Mainly because there wasn't anyone to play with. I won both chess tournaments in middle school but after that I just couldn't find anyone who played the game. I recall my father played often with his friends. But unfortunately we weren't at all close and I never played with him. BTW, if you had to play against a female, say Nemo, what kind of moves would you use on her? Any special strategy? Which of her pieces would you want to take first? Just curious as I'd imagine your thinking may have to take a departure from the usual.

Some may think so. The poster who gave me a confused look certainly seems to think so. Not too difficult to guess who it was.

To be fair you should first investigate the reason for the different classifications. There are inherent natural differences between male and female which only fools would deny. It may be due to just such a difference which exists in this case. What would not be fair is to assume without knowing for sure based strictly on preconceived notions which may very well be incorrect. Also, since there are undeniable differences between the sexes the mere act of pointing out what those differences are does not make on sexist. My advise would be to restrain yourself from being so quick to claim sexism, a serious charge, when it may in fact be completely unwarranted.

I'd like to play with Nemo, too. I might lose but who cares.

I read the entire article. And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat: The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year? The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article. I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising? A small victory for you?

I Know. It's hard not to laugh. I read in some archived stone tablet that the month of July in BC 109,456 was much hotter by a significant degree (pun intended). It really starts to get ludicrous.

He knows. He's asking you if you know. You either do or don't. Speak up.

Are you suggesting it's related to climate change? If so, please provide hard evidence. I'll accept none of your biased inferences. Without hard data supporting such a contention inferences have a value that is less than zero.