Reigntax

No. I mean peer reviews but “scientists” with the same agenda are useless.

As I said, never mentioned. Different from some continued collection of data.

No peer reviews have ever been done nor allowed unless you consider review by persons with the same agenda.

And this is the issue. temperature increase will be beneficial for areas outside the tropics but possibly not those within. Temperature rise is also not linear, nor proportional and what optimal temperature averaged out across the whole earth is unknown. so the experts are recommending actions based on achieving an unknown temperature value based on reducing certain concentrations of whatever the culprit is this year. Remember the Ozone fanatics from 20 years ago. It’s never mentioned now. it’s now cO2 which makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere and let’s face it, along with oxygen is a basic necessity to sustain most plant and human growth. As I said before, the science and debate of climate variation does not exist while climate experts refer to any opposing views as “ deniers” and use the “99% of all scientists believe.. “ excuse because they don’t like their “theories” open to peer review. Which is strange in itself because peer review, questioning and the cumulative input of intelligence is more likely to be accurate. Unless, like a person with the intelligence of Einstein, where again 99% of “scientists “ rejected some of his theories, the 99% are guessing well outside their ability. Worse still, they want to reduce you quality of life land use you money to fund their pet projects based on limited information knowledge and a personal agenda.

Yes. Bangkok will gradually go underwater but the cause is not climate change. The cause Is development on a natural river delta that changes the characteristic’s of how normal discharge would occur. its no different to any other river system. Without any development, the annual flooding would deposit silt, sand and plant matter on the banks gradually raising the land levels. As the get higher, instead of 100’s of small creeks discharging, there would be a few major and vast areas of land would dry out, some only being exposed during higher level floods. But Bangkok’s development has changed this. Silt build up cannot occur on the hard surfaces and the level of any piece of land remains at the height from the very day any development occurred. The silt is just being discharged into the Gulf. The flooding is not increasing. It’s just the natural variation to the rain cycle and frequency. But development is increasing which results in more disturbance to the natural flow paths, more people affected, more media attention and more alarmists demanding action or else. There is no feasible solution but ti live with the annual cycle. Some years the flooding will be minor and others, extreme. Bangkok won’t be 70m underwater in 80 years as the extremists will have you believe. It will be exactly the same as it is today with normal climatic frequency variations determining the flood depth. The attraction to what caused the establishment of the Bangkok area is now the problem as the delta is no longer primarily used for the original purpose which was probably subsistence living, fishing, rice, and the river provided a means to transport goods to and from.

Don’t you just love it. yes, our predictions were wrong in the past because we didn’t have all the information. But you must believe us now, even though we don’t have accurate data for our modelling, this time we are correct. We know what we are saying even though our knowledge lacks accuracy.

Did they happen on previous climate cycles to the same extent or more? how did they magically remediate during or after the warm cycle peaks? Magic wands and spells? Yes. Prediction of the future is based on modelling. Unfortunately the modelling is flawed and lacks accurate information and knowledge on all the variables. Therefore, they are nothing more accurate that a random guess!!

False. it’s generally agreed that temperature cycles both warming and cooling, are a natural cycle that have occurred numerous times throughout history and did so well before any known existence of mankind. This variation occurs due do many variables including catastrophic events outside of human controls. it’s also possible that human development accelerates this change.. whether that is good or bad is unknown. The problem you have like most climate radicals is you call anyone who opposed your view a “climate denier”. This is natural because you, or others similar, don’t like to have all the answers but aren’t willing to admit it. So it’s a way of degrading any peer review because the obvious flaws will be exposed. I always ask people similar to yourself, so if you know everything and are so certain about it, then what is the best temperature. what we have today? 2 degrees cooler? 2 degrees warmer? But you won’t answer that question. If you even try, you will skirt around giving a definite answer. has any “scientist” put their reputation on the line by stating the idea temperature? No and they won’t. But why not? I thought science was exact and surely these experts know everything already? Like you, better to call people with opposed view as “ deniers” rather than prove your theory. The complete opposite of what good science is.

Let’s put it another way. Any person, let alone a scientist who states a position and theory without knowing and understanding every single variable is a fool. Any scientist who thinks they know enough to develops such a theory is likewise. Any scientist who thinks they even know 50% of the variables and knowledge of climate change can join this self proclaimed elite group. Science can’t even predict the weather with any accuracy in the next 7 days and they have every instrument and measurement they should need. And they expect people to believe they can predict the future. It’s nothing more that guessing based on presumptions. I wonder if they were held accountable for their predictions would they be so forthcoming with their lies. let’s get all Scientists to have professional indemnity insurance and then when the world follows their instructions and they are false, we will claim against them for losses. other professions have to, why not scientists?

Of course climate change is real. Nobody denies that. the argument is about what part is a natural frequency and what is contributed to mankind. the argument is then “ what is the perfect temperature” and nobody knows. increased frequencies of storm Events etc somehow is proportional to the development of communication. today we hear or read about everything instantly. 200 years ago it took 6 months to hear of an event on the other side of the world, if at all. As for your argument 95% of scientists believe….etc is irrelevant. 1% if correct scientists is better than 99% incorrect. a few hundred years ago 99% of scientists believed the earth was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe and that evolution was false. So much for the 99% of scientists!!! in relation to your 70 m of sea level rise. Just consider for a minute what you are saying, the area you state takes up what percentage of the earths surface? Less than 5 %, I don’t know. But if only 5 % it would have to be 1.4 kms high across the whole cross section and probably 30% more to allow for being less compacted.

I’ve melting does not increase the volume of water even though about 10% remains above the water surface level. this is another fallacy of the climate, instant but unqualified experts. when water turns to ice it expands, hence becomes less dense, more buoyant and results in ice above the surface. as it melts, it displaces exactly the same as the volume it previously did. And that’s exactly why ice floats in water. Fortunately, science is not a consensus of opinion of the masses. History has many examples.and that’s exactly why the climate experts don’t like open and free debates. Their agendas are shown mostly to be nothing more than political preferences and insufficient facts other than what has been manipulated. remember the global cooling scare campaign of the 70’s? Oil will run out by the 90’s? yes, all from the so called “experts”!!! And yes Rooster, you’ve also been conned. But there is a difference between being and English and a Science teacher. Unless that science teacher also believes everything they are told to.

Because there is no use him being on Prawit’s watch list. Different story if he was Swiss!!!