Tippaporn

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.

Why they're all independent, self-funded scientists with no strings attached to anyone, and each and every one of them as pure in their objectivity as the wind driven snow.

Seems to be backed up by what I posted above. The new updates to global CO2 emissions in the GCP substantially revise scientists’ understanding of global emissions trajectories over the past decade. The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.

I thought you'd pose a difficult question. CarbonBriefs The new updates to global CO2 emissions in the GCP substantially revise scientists’ understanding of global emissions trajectories over the past decade. The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. I know that you're expecting demanding a "yes" answer and if it's not yes then you'll slander my character by falsely claiming that my quite reasonable, intelligent, logical and well thought out response is verbal diarrhea and furthermore claim I'm psychologically unstable. You will then prove my points in previous posts in which I describe climate change believers as exhibiting cultish behaviour. You're not looking for the truth. Rather, you're only looking to validate your truth. Do you understand the difference?

He ain't gonna read it because it doesn't fit the climate change belief system and so therefore it must be worthless so why read it as it's a waste of time? That's the basic mental gymnastics used when considering opposing arguments. Prejudge the contents without ever looking at the contents so that you can conveniently dismiss it.

Show me the raw data so that I can analyse it myself. Which you won't because you can't. Let's just say that I'm not as trusting as you are when it comes to swallowing informational charts without the actual data that produced it. It's easy to be conned that way.

How is what I said psychobabble? I've pretty much said exactly what you've posted as a reply. It's just that the reality of it is that the shoe is on the other foot (yours). The so called climate change deniers look at all of the data and consider all aspects of the issue. Climate change believers only look at the data that fits and discard, out of hand, anything that doesn't. Proof of that? Look no further than what sources can and cannot be used in a debate.

I'll never again live without one.

While I agree with novacova on much I disagree with his use of the term "climate religion." It's most definitely a "climate cult." I'm not trolling here by saying that. Anyone who understands the psychological aspects that are responsible for the formation of cultish behaviour can readily recognise these same aspects at play amongst climate change believers. The behaviours are near identical. I absolutely agree with the last statement. It is a well known fact that once a belief about reality is mistaken for a condition of reality - in other words a belief that is presumed to be true but is not - then the belief not only causes blindness to any information which doesn't conform to the belief but the belief becomes almost unshakable.

Where's your evidence? Al Gore claimed back on December 14, 2009, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark that scientist predicted a 75% chance that the north pole would be completely ice-free during some of the summer months by 2016. That hasn't happened and it still hasn't happened. The problem with climate change believers is none of their predictions come true. And as to their efforts to connect a single hurricane or any other major weather event to climate change has never been done with absolute conclusive scientific evidence which every scientist would be able to agree with. The point being that neither do you have any real evidence. Keep in mind, interpretations of data is not real evidence, especially when it data that is not shared.