JCauto

14 hours ago, bendejo said:

Can't help but thinking of Al Capone here -- for all he did, what brought him down was tax evasion.

All this Cohen stuff, when you get down to the core of the whole mess, had to do with DT dipping his wick.  And of course yapping off.  You'd think someone over 70 would know when to keep their mouth shut.

 

I take it you don't have older relatives?

And the dominoes start falling...and Michael Cohen is fully turned and singing about...wait for it...collusion with Russia! 

Witchhunt! Best people! How many now convicted felons? And Cohen about to turn State's evidence on Russia. A link direct between Russian mafia money, Ukraine politics, the NRA and Trump. The house of cards is falling in slow motion. What a great show. 

I thought the guy was quite a skilled driver actually. His ability to push the other cars gently with his own and manoeuvre around the others showed much more skill than usually observed. 

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

That's not what I said at all...  I was pointing out that some parents were worried about possible autism concerns connected to the MMR vaccine, and so preferred to give the vaccinations individually - but this was made very difficult by the authorities.

 

Why did you change this to parents deciding to not vaccinate their children at all?

Oh, sorry, completely misread that. Carry on then.

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

If we're moving on to the MMR vaccine - then I agree with thaibeachlovers on this issue.

 

There is some evidence that the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism in a few children, so understandably many parents preferred to give their children the vaccines individually.

 

The authorities tried very hard to stop this, and their argument (IIRC) was that the delay in administering the individual vaccines could cause an increase in the number of these (already very low....) diseases.....

 

One of the worst examples of the 'establishments' determination to enforce their rules on everyone, even when there was no reason to do so.  The three separate vaccinations had worked extremely well for decades.

Right, so because there were possibly but not at all proven to be a few cases where the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism, then it's permissible and understandable for parents to mitigate that practically non-existent risk in exchange for weakening the herd because you haven't vaccinated your little one. That you are weakening community immunity (herd immunity) is indisputable, and we are already observing how measles and mumps are making a comeback because of this. This is not theory, there is no doubt.

Similar to the Climate Change debate, there is a massive and reviewed body of scientific study and evidence on one side, and the "feelings" of some uninformed and untrained people on the other who "believe" they understand the issues better than these professionals have spent their lives training and gaining actual experience in dealing with the real world consequences of applying their knowledge. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in its most obvious and pervasive form. It's no wonder that those who believe this are also those who are the most hopeless about our future and least willing to commit to doing anything personally about it. Like the blindly religious, they give up their reasoning faculties in favour of faith in something that confirms their bias.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

On the one hand you claim to be a scientist and on the other you state as an absolute fact that a vaccination induced autism in your child. How do you square your assertion with the scientific method? Or with the CDC's massive study to determine whether or not there is a link between autism and vaccination?

Good and relevant one from Reddit today.

Why was the 3-year old child of Anti-Vaxxer parents crying?

She was having a mid-life crisis.

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

5555 did you honestly expect the Obama justice department to indict their own folks?

 

And it's not hard to indict someone who can't be extradited.......

Yes, yes I would. Because that's what happened under Nixon. And Clinton. And Trump. These are people in law enforcement. They have this tendency to do their jobs and enforce the law. If they had found something Obama had done, they'd have investigated and indicted him too.

Now compare that to justice in your country. The Magnitsky Affair tells you everything you need to know about corrupt countries and their justice systems.

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't really care what happens to you and if I had a master plan that could save the future world, I wouldn't bother, you can all die.

As I previously stated, I only have 10 years left.

Well aren't you a fun guy! I hope you'll pardon our attempting to do something for others, didn't mean to disturb your angry descent into death.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If I were an American taxpayer, I'd want to know why an investigation costing millions and lasting over a year, has not produced a single conviction for collusion with the Russians over the last election.

Now that's a good point! After all the Benghazi investigation took over 2.5 years with no fewer than 7 congressional committees investigating it and cost almost $8,000,000 and there was not a SINGLE INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION!

Because the investigation on Collusion with Russia has so far produced five indictments and one conviction in half the time for those who are keeping score. And we're just getting started! So you must be feeling vindicated that the waste of Benghazi has been finally stopped and we're getting some results from Mueller's probe.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't see any limit to the food, water and land possible in the short term (500 years).

But the people who grow the food, process the water and own the land don't give it away free of charge, which is the only reason the poor will have a problem. If the west was run the way it used to be run, with armed guards at borders with 'shoot-to-kill' orders, there wouldn't be a problem with 'humanity' moving around. But it suits the globalists current agenda to allow invaders into the west.

500 years, eh? Well then, what was I worried about! You will publish a link to your research I hope so that we ignorant folk who have estimated that we're going to lose an awful lot of that highly productive land to sea level rise and salinization, and a lot of the food production to disruptive storms, changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and other knock-on effects will feel so much better about this new lease on life. Why have the media been trying to silence you and your amazing and unique research?

Just now, BritManToo said:

You assume I'm the ignorant one and you're the informed one.

Yes, that's true. My basis for assessment is my work as an engineer and scientist in natural resources management issues including forestry. As a result of my many years of experience, I have had to read numerous scientific studies, become familiar with the different aspects of natural resources management and the issues that impact them, and engage in scientific analysis of complex issues such as hydrology of sub-tropical catchments to determine potential maximum flood flows. What's yours?

46 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

To be honest i really do not think climate change is going to be the major ptoblem,as the worlds poor and uneducated breed ,faster and faster and as their food and water runs out,the tide of humanity running to countrys that have these things will be a tsunami, barriers will go up to try to stem the flood and wars will ensue,God help the population in the time to come and i just thank the sky fairy i was born when i was.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

So you don't see a link to the poor running out of food, water and land and their eventual migration and Climate Change? Hint - it's what will result in the running out of the food, water and land.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Not really as they're all paid to prove the same thing and produce papers proving the same thing.

As Rick stated, you are on the 'victim', 'social justice' side of the equation, as demonstrated in every post you make and every 'like' you give, no thinking required on your part, just follow SJW policy.

So your point is that if they're being paid to research something, then they will come to the conclusions of the paymasters because that is in their best economic interest in order to keep their jobs. It's a great point. For those of us who understand science, that is.

You see, someone working for ClimateChangeRUs who discovered that the books were cooked, that the conclusions were wrong, that the actual evidence points to no man-made impacts, that there are perfectly valid natural explanations for the warming of the earth and its impacts, would become instantly wealthy and famous. They would have their own private Climate Research Institute funded by the Koch Bros. as soon as they could put their signature on the contract. They would have Exxon and the Carbon Energy Giants lining up to give them money to propagate more research to prove that anthropogenic climate change is bunkum.

Yet they can't get a single credible scientist to accept these riches, this fame, these powers. Wonder why that is? It's the best possible rebuttal to the anti-science crowd - anyone with scientific credibility willing to twist the results to achieve an end would get whatever they wanted, yet nobody will sell out their principles to make fake research.

44 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Yep, didn't vaccinate my English kids, but you feel free to damage yours.

Thai hospital vaccinated my Thai kids (no choice), and one was damaged (mild vaccine-induced autism), but seemed to recover a couple of years later.

 

5555! Yes, you're a classic case. It's called the "backfire effect", where people's beliefs are actually reinforced by facts that directly contradict them and then they see evidence of their views everywhere they look ("confirmation  bias"). These are symptoms of what is known as the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Dunning-Kruger Effects occur when individuals’ lack of knowledge about a particular subject leads them to inaccurately gauge their expertise on that subject. Ignorance of one’s own ignorance can lead people who lack knowledge on a subject think of themselves as more expert than those who are comparatively better informed.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

As I understand it Sessions recused himself from a Russia investigation because of his Russia ties, nothing to do with bias for or against Trump, or lying.

 

Whatever you or I think, Mueller thought it so bad he removed Strzok from his team because of the overt bias revealed in the texts.

So your first sentence basically is in agreement with my point. 

The reason Mueller removed Strzok is that he knows those desperately defending the President would use it as a continuous distraction to the investigation so he got rid of it before Trumpeters could turn it into a constant drone in the news cycle. Which of course you're still trying to do. But sorry, it's one investigator out of hundreds, and the weight of evidence is such that this straw man will be well revealed for what it is in due course.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no problem acknowledging that human activity may have had some impact on climate, but I have yet to be convinced that it is a primary cause of destructive climate change. I'm more convinced by the science that promotes increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of heat than of Gore's proposition that CO2 causes heat. I also think that the sun's activity far outweighs anything man does.

 

I'll certainly agree that by destroying the forests of the planet, humans have released vast amounts of CO2 and prevented the capture of CO2 by tree growth. A classic case of humanity shooting itself in the foot, yet NOTHING has been done to  reverse the destruction of forests.

I'll agree that aeroplanes are a MAJOR cause of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere, yet far from limiting air travel, every government in the world is doing all they can to INCREASE it.

Nuclear power is the only non polluting ( CO2 ) power source that can actually meet demand ( other than hydro, and that is limited to certain countries ), yet countries like Germany and Japan are trying to do away with it, while other countries ban it outright.

 

All I can gain from the information that is available to me, is that humans are very stupid when it comes to preserving the environment, and governments are very bad at deciding priorities. Probably the worst model of development, ever increasing productivity, is the one most in use on the planet, yet it is suicidal for the future of humanity. Enough studies have been done with rats to know what happens when populations increase beyond the ability of their environment to support them, yet humans continue to overpopulate themselves without any restraint, especially now China revoked it's one child policy.

What is crystal, is that too many humans inhabit the planet, and till that is reversed, we are doomed as a species.

Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, and the overwhelming if not unanimous consensus among the experts who study and understand the science and medicine is that these are safe and necessary. You are welcome to join fellow cranks in pissing on everything the professionals and scientists are doing but it's pointless to discuss further.

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Things are running just fine there, check our economy. But hey, YMMV.

I disagree, Russia's economy has some major structural issues and is dominated by oligarchs.

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Within 4 months an additional special prosecutor will be appointed and these FBI fascists will be indicted. Bet a beer at Hillary 1 on it.

 

Im old enough to remember FBI abuses under Hoover. Im old enough to remember the CIA and FBI scandals of the 70s. Guys like Angleton....men who thought their positions made them a law unto themselves.

 

What is sad is that folks let their hatred of Prez Trump obscure the deep institutional problems in the alphabet agencies. I remember a time when the press did more than just cheerlead for their favourite political position, like when they ferreted out real abuses and exposed them no matter whose ox was gored...

I've told you before - choose a different name when you're a Russian troll, you don't want to make it so obvious...

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My point wasn't about his competence, but about him not recusing himself when he had an overwhelming bias against Trump.

Sessions recused himself for less.

No, no he did not. Sessions recused himself because he'd been involved in meeting the Russians during the events in question and then lied (oops, sorry, uh, mis-spoke, didn't recall, seemed to have forgotten...) about it under testimony to Congress. He did not recuse himself because he was biased for Trump. 

Well, the first thing he's managed to get right - allowing private sector sales - is balanced by the stupidity of further pushing back implementation to April. What's the point? The private sales network is already well established, and the only thing that stops it is police deciding in various precincts to raid them. Once the raids stop, you'll have neighbourhood stores everywhere. And why the hell not? Why do we have to give our money to the damn Beer Store or LCBO?

By the way, to answer my own question, the point is that Ford never wanted legalization and this is just another way for him to delay it.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless you can prove that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree, I think you should not use that as evidence of anything. I've known scientists that were as dumb as a rock, so I wouldn't agree that they actually "know" anything.

I don't think there was any dispute as to the destruction of the ozone layer, and a solution was found and implemented. No such agreement exists either that man is the primary cause of climate change, or how to deal with it, whatever caused it.

The dinosaurs didn't cause the asteroid to strike the planet, and CC may just be a natural event, not to our benefit. Personally, I think Gaia has had enough of our destruction and is going to get rid of us, by one way or another.

Well, there's this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Sure, it's only the consensus amongst those who study climate, but you know, if I want to know what is going on with the Large Hadron Collider I'm not going to ask a Biologist.

What, it's only NASA? Can we get a broader consensus? How about if we review the opinions of only the people who have studied and published climate papers? How about if we review the 12,000 or more climate papers and see what their results are? Yep. Same, somewhere between 90 and 100% with most settling at 97%. That is what we call "broad scientific consensus" of the sort that you only get when you usually deal with questions like "does smoking cause cancer".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Your previous posts have been quite reasonable. I don't understand why you're suddenly veering into invention of facts that are easily debunked. Does acknowledging that human activity is having major detrimental results on the planet something that disturbs you? It's so obvious that it calls into question your previous judgments and sincerity in engaging in discussion.

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if it's the environment you are concerned about, then it makes much more sense to reduce the numbers of the rich and middle class, since they consume a disproportionate amount of Earth's resources.

Except that by removing the people who are the best hope of changing their behaviour and adapting to the new situation in favour of the least educated and most likely to continue destructive practices, you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Certainly we need to re-orient the economy towards recycle and reuse and enlist those people to lead that battle, rather than discarding them in some misguided attempt to punish what has not been illegal behaviour. After all, they're the ones holding the political power and who will determine what happens.

18 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, hot in one place doesn't prove global warming any more than putting my arm in the oven does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems. 

Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just another doofus? 
 

Except that one has the overwhelming support and consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists. The other has a bunch of contrarians with no evidence.

18 hours ago, RickBradford said:

And so we circle back to an earlier point; that climate "change" of any sort, in any direction, is claimed by activists to be driven by, or at the very least "consistent with", catastrophic man-made global warming.

 

Hot, cold, wet, dry, it's all man-made global warming, according to the activists. It's a living demonstration of the saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When all you have is a hatred of capitalist industry, or humanity in general, everything looks like a greenhouse gas-driven crisis.

 

On the face of it, it looks like a good strategy, but the problem is that everyone has now seen through it, and the activists have no Plan B. The climate alarmism ship still floats in the ocean, but very few people remain on board.

 

No, no we haven't, and yes, yes you know this. My point was a lazy one, but then again it was a reaction to the sort of silly comments that drag a debate into banality. You eating a burrito doesn't mean you've solved world hunger.

You have already acknowledged that there is anthropogenic climate change, but that we disagree on the extent and scale. We don't need to continue to "debate" the point with respect to the overwhelming scientific consensus. That's over and anyone who wants to have a go needs to get thee to a university to demonstrate your research. There's lots of folks who are looking for a champion to disprove the science, have a go! But to pretend that it's still not known is disingenuous.