Reigntax

I’m sure there will be many jealous bargirls who would have been happy to be inappropriately touched for less than 10% of that amount

I hope I get a text soon saying my flight home is cancelled. I suppose it will save me going home and coming back next month. Tears of happiness would be so sad!!!

Yes. The feeding frenzy has began. Sumiliar to watching Chinese at a smorgasbord !!

I can’t imagine with Prawit around there could possibly be any vacant seats.

Maybe he considered his pistol too small or insufficient ?

I think he may have misinterpreted the instructions on how to cut ties.

Taking a knife to an intended reconciliation is not a good idea unless accompanied by a cake. But he has probably forked up any chances now!!

Not my friends. If you don’t realise the only benefit you are to the Thai people, then Good luck to you. And I suppose you thought it was your personality ????????

There is a difference between accepted, wanted and liked. We are accepted because we have ATM cards, wanted after visiting an ATM and liked until it runs out. nothing much else matters!!

Planning for next years 5 day crackdown I’ve assumed they have the weekend off

I have a high opinion of scientists, unfortunately this is not the majority. Scientists look at actual facts, not assumptions and based on all facts, make a conclusion. if facts or knowledge are missing, they find them or search for years to find them. They don’t say, “ I couldn’t be bothered, I’ll just make an assumption and shut down everyone who questions it”. A competent confident Scientist will encourage peer review and questioning of his conclusions. The more the better and he certainly wouldn’t discourage a single argument. How he built it? I’d first like to know how he knew?

Yes technology will eventually solve most energy issues. Nuclear will eventually form most base load requirements supplemented by alternatives such as hydro, wind, thermal and solar. But this requires investment that is economically viable and sustainable unlike many of the current alternatives. It’s Better to replace the cause rather than try to control or tax the result.

Ok. So during the previous 9 or so climate cycles in known earth history, from cooling to warming where mankind did not exist what caused these climate change variations? Did monsoonal rains equal to or greater not exist ? Did freak storms exist? How were many of the current river gorges formed where today there are only small rivers with the occasional seasonal flood? why have large rivers changed their geometry over thousands of years? How did Noah know to build his ark? Maybe the Climatologists of the day got together and predicted it?

Warmer air holds less moisture but has higher enthalpy. Have a look at a psychometric chart.

I’ve never asked to see data. I’ve asked anyone to tell me what the most desirable climate temperature is. im also not trying to convince you of anything. Right from the beginning of this topic I’ve stated that insufficient information on all the variables related to climate change exist. There are many unknowns but still “scientists” make predictions that are nothing more than guesses based on inaccurate modelling and insufficient data. despite this, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars based on their guesses and cause detriment to the average persons quality of life. I have never proclaimed nor denied climate change is occurring but I would also never expect others to contribute or follow any flawed modelling based on incomplete data. The obligation is upon those begging for funds to prove their case and that it has been correctly analysed and proven beyond reasonable doubt and economically viable.

You need data to prove that a temperature increase in cold areas will result in higher productivity? How about just the word or structure or purpose of “Greenhouse.” OK let’s assume all predictions are correct. Can you define what percentage of climate change is natural and what percentage is man made. After all, we can only make changes to the man made portion as the remainder naturally occurs and will continue to do so. Or not? And if so at what point or temperature do the Laws of Thermodynamics, as a previous poster stated, provide an environment of/in equilibrium?

Like most articles in the topic it only lists predicted detrimental affects. No mention of anything positive like current low temperature areas will benefit from increased temperature and productivity. Nowhere are the benefits and the impacts ever argued or stated. I fail to see how an increase in temperature affecting a land mass below or above 30 deg latitude would be anything but positive. Does this provide an overall advantage. I don’t know but nobody else seems to consider this either

Ok. So what temperature is too hot? I thought the word green house was based on a structure to deliberatly increase the temperature and humidity where growth became more abundant? Or am I mistaken and greenhouses are used to retard growth?

The graph represents total climate change., both natural and man made. None can determine what percentages were contributed by each or whether there are other contributing factors. What is interesting in that graph is the downturn about the 1970’s and I assume this is the same period where science predicted global cooling. I have never heard anyone try to explain this but I do remember at the time the consensus was that it was caused by pollution blocking out the sunlight or similar. And if for arguments sake, this had continued, what would the science community recommended to stop climate cooling? More burning of fossil fuels?

Agreed. There has never been advancements in quality of life over the same period before also. The question really is whether the warming is good for society, what is the maximum target before it becomes detrimental and about obtaining data on as many of the variables that contribute cumulatively so that accurate predictions and results can be determined. Currently that is not the case. It’s become a topic for activism rather than based on science and popular to express views by those with little knowledge but a preference to support major populist agendas while ignoring the issues where they can contribute like getting their own houses in order before solving the problems of the world

No. Any person who is unable to define exactly what they are trying to achieve by spending countless amounts of other peoples money is not a scientist, they are a political activists with an agenda on a predetermined position.

Zero what? Change from now? if so, are you saying the optimal temperature is that currently? So are you saying 1 deg temperature rise or fall will be detrimental? How was your baseline optimal temperature established ? Can we just accept you will never quantify any exact optimal conditions because to do so is impossible without guessing?

Let’s not get started on religion. the biggest brainwashing and agenda in history to control the actions of the masses.

No. Agenda is a term where a predetermined result is intended by ignoring opposing views and only listening to the likeminded.

That information is collected in sone obscure place is completely different to the daily alarmists predictions we were bombarded with 20 years ago. if the basis of spending trillions of dollars to achieve a result based on a theory why don’t you spell out the exact temperature that is optimal for the continued existence. Who spends money without trying to achieve a definitive and known result? Is it the current average temperature? warmer or cooler? Surely the 99% of experts can accurately define the target?