kwilco

the trouble with corruption, nepotism and graft is that even legally elected politicians can e incompetent. Time and again Thailand comes up with cockamamie ideas and concepts, of which this is a prime example. Of course when it comes to handing out government civil engineering contracts.........!!!

I lived in Thailand for 20 years, first visited in 1994 and still spend a lot of the year in th country. I have studied and read a lot about both Thai history and politics - I worked at Universities in Thailand Australia and Uk - I know enough about critical thinking not to take "What I see" for granted. A lot of what you need to read to understand the situation in Thailand is "not available" in Thailand. You can of course speak to academics and politicians (I used to work for a high ranking Yellow shirt) A lot of what I have learned about Thai politics I'm not at liberty to discuss on this site (or any other in Thailand).THe truth is that the "ruling elite" in THailand is and has always been fractured and a lot depends on who has the upper hand as to if or when a coup takes place. "Thailand has too many cooks in the kitchen. Political differences come about very easily and they end up with the army knocking their heads together." THis is a basic misunderstanding of what happens in Thailand - in reality there is a 32 party system but the legal system is used to break it up. Power however is not is the parliamentary system it is elsewhere - the army doesn't "knock heads together" although that is the image they portray they are actually part of the goverment of Thailand not like is US or Europe. THere are not that many political differences they are just split up by the courts....when the courst can go no further the military take over. Needless to say this is a partial picture as the full picture can't be discussed. It places like Australia USA and UK there is a constitutional division of power - unfortunately in Thailand these divisions are either blurred or non-existent. Hence the decades of political instability.

If you say the world is flat, it means by the very statement, you aren't an "expert"

that is really not what happens in Thailand.

Discussing the possibility of a coup in the same tones as one might talk about the weather seems a uniquely Thai thing. It also is a sad reflection on the state of "democracy" in Thailand that it appears perfectly acceptable - even by those who oppose the instigators!

the military has always been fragmented. When people start saying there won't be a coup in Thailand it is becasue lots of people think there will be.

Driving in BKK is actually quite easy ....BUT you need to know where you are going. I suggest you have online access to Google maps on your phone or tablet - this takes 90% of the hassle out of navigating Bangkok. THe most frustrating aspect of driving in Bangkok is the slowness of the traffic - in parts it crawls so allow time for tt. Also if you end up under the expressways you can some times loose signal so get a rough idea of your route before to set off. If you don't fancy setting off through town, just take the shortest route to the M9 ring road and follow the signs off that.

No, it means that they may have been developing land they shouldn't. You realise that gradient isn't the sole factor in causing landslides? THere's a lot more to it than that. there is, however, a centuries old tradition in THailand of not building on hillsides - you normally only find temples in these locations.

Wrong!

Bring on the road safety "experts" (hate that word!) - the "should've, would've, could've" brigade armed with a big slice of assumption and bigotry - it's really sad - what do they think they contribute to Thailand's roud safety problems? THe only thing I can see is how ignorant they are of road safety - what makes that a matter for concern is that they are probably road users themselves.

I believe there is a law in Thailand that says any land with a gradient more than 19 degrees belongs to the crown

Climate deniers remind me of "Flann O'Brien - The Third Policeman's Theory of the molecules" except without the genius or humour The arguments presented by climate change deniers are not just misguided or stupid; they are dangerous. They rely on misinformation, cherry-picking data, and outright falsehoods to deny a reality that is already affecting millions of people worldwide. The science is clear: climate change is real, it is driven by human activities, and it requires immediate action. Denial and delay only serve to exacerbate the problem, putting our future at risk. It’s time to move beyond these tired and discredited arguments and focus on the solutions we need to protect our planet and future generations Great Lakes Water Levels: The claim that the Great Lakes were "supposed to have dried up" but instead reached their highest levels is a gross misrepresentation of climate science. No credible climate model predicted that the Great Lakes would dry up in a few years. In reality, climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events, leading to both severe droughts and intense rainfall. This variability can result in fluctuating lake levels, exactly as observed. The current high levels are consistent with increased precipitation driven by a warming atmosphere. Mischaracterizing this as a failure of climate science is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive. Ice Caps and Glaciers: The notion that ice caps are "growing" is an outright distortion of the truth. While it's true that some specific areas may see temporary increases in ice mass due to short-term local conditions, the overwhelming global trend is one of significant ice loss. The Arctic is warming at more than twice the global average rate, leading to record lows in sea ice extent. The Antarctic is also losing ice, with the ice shelves thinning and the glaciers retreating at alarming rates. These losses contribute to rising sea levels, which is a critical and undeniable threat to coastal communities worldwide. Cherry-picking isolated cases of growth and ignoring the broader context is a tactic used to mislead and confuse. Listening to Real Climate Scientists: Dismissing the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists as part of a "hoax" is not only baseless but also dangerous. These experts have dedicated their careers to understanding the Earth's climate system, and their findings are backed by decades of rigorous research, peer-reviewed studies, and empirical data. The claim that their work is too "complex" for the public to understand is a patronizing attempt to discredit legitimate science. It’s not that the science is too complex—it's that climate deniers are unwilling to accept the reality it reveals. "Global Warming" vs. "Climate Change": The assertion that the term "global warming" was "debunked" and replaced with "climate change" is a cynical attempt to confuse the issue. "Global warming" refers specifically to the increase in Earth's average surface temperature due to greenhouse gas emissions. "Climate change," on the other hand, encompasses the broader range of effects caused by this warming, including shifts in weather patterns, more frequent and severe storms, and changes in ecosystems. This terminology shift is not about deception but about accurately describing the complex reality of what's happening to our planet. Historical CO2 Levels: Referencing ancient periods with higher CO2 levels to downplay current climate change is a blatant misuse of historical data. Yes, CO2 levels were higher millions of years ago, but those periods were characterized by completely different environmental conditions, including significantly higher temperatures and vastly different ecosystems. The rapid rise in CO2 levels today, caused by human activity, is occurring on an unprecedented timescale, giving ecosystems and human societies little time to adapt. This rapid change is driving the current climate crisis and cannot be dismissed by pointing to geological epochs where the world was unrecognizable compared to today. CO2 and Plant Growth: The simplistic argument that "more CO2 = more plant growth" is a dangerous oversimplification. While CO2 is a key component of photosynthesis, the benefits of increased CO2 are limited and come with significant drawbacks. Elevated CO2 levels can lead to lower nutritional value in crops, disrupt ecosystems, and exacerbate water stress. Moreover, the benefits of increased plant growth are overshadowed by the severe impacts of climate change, including more frequent droughts, floods, and extreme weather events that threaten food security globally. The idea that more CO2 is purely beneficial ignores these critical consequences. The Sun’s Role in Climate: Claiming that the Sun is responsible for 97% of climate change and downplaying human influence is a gross distortion of scientific understanding. While the Sun is indeed the primary source of energy for Earth, the changes in solar output are not sufficient to explain the rapid warming observed in recent decades. The scientific consensus is clear: the current warming trend is primarily driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This increase traps more heat, leading to global warming. Attempts to blame the Sun are a deliberate attempt to distract from the real issue—our reliance on fossil fuels. Volcanic CO2 Emissions: The idea that a single volcanic eruption can emit more CO2 than human activities is factually incorrect. On a yearly basis, human activities release far more CO2 than all volcanic eruptions combined. The average annual CO2 emissions from human activities are about 100 times greater than those from volcanoes. Moreover, large volcanic eruptions often result in a temporary cooling effect due to the release of aerosols, which reflect sunlight away from the Earth. This cooling effect is temporary and does not negate the long-term warming caused by human CO2 emissions. Misrepresenting volcanic activity as a significant contributor to climate change is a common tactic used to minimize the impact of human actions. Conservation of Matter and Earth’s Cooling: The claim that "what is on the earth stays here" and that the Earth is "slowly cooling" ignores the critical difference between physical matter and energy balance. While matter is conserved, the form and distribution of matter can change dramatically, with significant impacts on the climate. For example, carbon that has been stored in fossil fuels for millions of years is now being released into the atmosphere as CO2, contributing to the greenhouse effect. As for Earth's long-term cooling, this is a natural process occurring over geological timescales, but it has no bearing on the rapid warming caused by human activities. The Earth is not "cooling" in any relevant sense; it is warming at an unprecedented rate due to our actions. Thinking for Yourself: Critical thinking is vital, but it must be informed by evidence and scientific reasoning, not conspiracy theories or politically motivated skepticism. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the conclusion that human activities are the primary driver of recent climate change. Disregarding this evidence in favor of unfounded claims is not "thinking for yourself"—it is willful ignorance. The consequences of climate change are real, and ignoring them will only lead to greater harm for future generations. True critical thinking involves engaging with the evidence, understanding the science, and taking responsibility for the future. Politicization of Climate Science: While it’s true that the issue of climate change has become politicized, this does not undermine the validity of the science. The consensus among scientists is based on decades of research and is not swayed by political agendas. In contrast, much of the climate denial movement is driven by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, such as fossil fuel companies and their political allies. These groups have a clear agenda to discredit science and sow doubt in the public’s mind to prevent action on climate change. It is crucial to recognize this for what it is: a strategy to protect profits at the expense of our planet’s future.

QED!

Don't be delibertely facile - Untrammelled development is a factor and of course more intensive weather that is linked to global warming - it's a perfect storm.

what do you think?

As I mentioned, some will remember the Bangkok and national flooding of 2011/12.It is predicted that this year could be a repeat as La Nina is also a factor....the truth is that Bangkok already IS flooding, it's not a prediction , it is a reality. The problem is perception - people think it will be a constant rise like filling up a bathtub. But in reality it will be a series of ups and downs over the next few yr=ears increasing in frequency and intensity. Form an economic point of view, land that is repeated underwater will become less and less valuable - as Honda demonstrated in 2011 the factory closed for 6 months. It eventually is being closed down.... just moving the "capital" is not a solution - the plains and delta on which Bangkok is built and developed will have to find a long term solution for the entire economy of the region. Meanwhile authorities, real estate agents, businesses and developers are keeping their heads in the sand (or rater mud) as an admitions without a planr could spell economic disaster for the nation.

Bangkok has been offered and considered help fromNetherlands and if I remember correctly turned it down. Thailand has an inherent resistance for foreign help in a wide range of national problems. Of course every lowland flooding situation id different and the solutions will be different too....but all of them now are facing problems stemming from Climate change - even the Dutch. - the only difference there is they are more organised and prepared...

THanks for revealing yourself as a complete and utter */&*@%$ - only someone like that would think they are cleverer than the entire educated population of the planet - it's Dunning Kruger effect in its in the most extreme

If you are an economist you need to do your research in order to understand how the economy will be affected - which is exactly what he's done.

Bangkok's problems are multiple and nuanced - A 2021 study released in the Science Essence Journal on sea level changes in the Gulf of Thailand showed that water levels have linearly increased between 0.72 and 19.19 millimeters per year in between 1977 and 2019. As fro ground water - the drainage has continues unabated - e.g. Suvarnabhumi was built over a swamp. In simplified view Groundwater extraction: The city has been rapidly extracting groundwater for domestic and industrial use. This depletes the aquifer, causing the land to subside. Rapid urbanization: The construction of high-rise buildings and other structures adds weight to the land, contributing to subsidence. Climate change: Rising sea levels pose a threat to low-lying cities like Bangkok, exacerbating the impact of subsidence. What happens further up the Chaophraya River and catchment areas also has a profound effect. Thailand is famous for untrammelled development and is paying the price all around the country, but sadly there is no sign of any sea-changes.

tht would have the opposite effect.

Bangkok can remain but governments have to recognise that vlimate change is real. WE had a taste of a flooded BKK in 2011/12 - which actually made several major changes to BKK - people permanently moved out of the capital and factories relocated. BKK s a delta that is largely covered over and due to the drainage for building etc the ground underneath is shrinking - thus exacerbating BKK's descent into the sea - measures can be made to save the Capital but they need to hold back the untrammelled development that so blights Bangkok and other parts oof the Kingdom

that is a typical dictatorship move - it allows government to build an island for themselves to keep away the people.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

QED