Jump to content

pikao

Member
  • Posts

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pikao

  1. My suggestion, which will not bring the humidity down but keeps away the mold/fungus is:

    open all the windows to create airflow. If you really need the aircon in one room, shut the door and windows when in use and open if not. I have a friend who has a similar problem in the bungalows of his resort. Bathroom is also a factor.

    Otherwise you would have to shut everything and run aircon permanently

    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
  2. On 9/8/2020 at 1:30 PM, jmccarty said:

    CBD and THC oils are now legal in Thailand by prescription.

     

    3 hours ago, bronzedude said:

    How can I get a prescription for CBD

     

    I got a prescription from a doctor.....easy and only 200 Baht. Went to the local hospital that recently opend a new section for medical marihuana. Doctor in the hospital said: For Thai people only

    • Sad 1
  3. Hi all,

    does anyone of you have experience with one of these cars? There's a Mazda Tribute on sale that looks ok. 174000 km, 2004, 150.000 THB and also an Escape more or less the same. I favour the Mazda but as they are relatively equal (platform, engine) I wonder if some of you can tell me about fuel consumption, transmission problems and other possible issues and flaws.

    Thanks in advance

  4. Had a similar "case" a few years ago. I live on Koh Phangan. The parcels came from Australia and were first held in Bangkok Customs and I had to go to Samui Customs Office to pay the duty. After that it was sent to my address. If Parcel2go is an agency you have to find out who the actual courier was and if it's held in customs or elsewhere. They should be able to tell you where it is....theoretically

    Best of luck

  5. On 2/4/2020 at 7:31 AM, bristolboy said:

    Got a link? Looks to me like some highly massaged data taken from a denialist website. 

     

    On 2/4/2020 at 7:51 AM, Salerno said:

    Possibly a bastardised version of this?

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    (3) Implicit endorsement

    Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

     

    IMO the data was highly massaged in the Cook study. And I don't think that I bastardised anything, I just stated the numbers. The assumption was made by the people  who did the study. And some TVF members.

    BTW a whatsoever % of something is scientifically completely irrelevant.

    (would a stone not fall to the ground if there was a consensus against it?)

    My personal point of view is:

    Is there a global warming and sea levels are rising?

    I do have the feeling (looking at the beaches and the hot summers)

    and many scientists and data say so

    Is this man made?

    Possible, but I don't know

    Is the cure for the problem to buy emission certificates to equalize carbon dioxide offset

    NOT

    I can't see that there are many actions taken to protect us and our environment. I see that goverments and NGO's want to make a lot of money

    P.S. The word "climate denialist" does not make sense at all, you can't deny climate. But it might give you a hint why it's used

    '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
  6. This is an edited re-post:

     

    When this became popular I wanted to know more about the 97.1 % consensus amongst scientists. So I, naively, started a Google search: "how many climate scientists are there worldwide" or "number of climate s....." etc.

    First page always shows: 97.1 % consensus, climate change etc. and the Wiki list gives you names of climate scientists over the centuries. Not my question. Anyway, I went a little deeper and came across the cook et al study (the study that's officially used) and the categories it's based on. If you want to know what it says exactly, look it up yourself. I make it a bit shorter

    Categories:

    1. Humanity is responsible for climate change (more than 50% human influence)

    2. Humanity is responsible (without quantification)

    3. Implies humans as a cause (without stating it)

    4. No position/Uncertain (studies only on climate itself)

    5. Implies humans have a minimal impact (proposing)

    6. Explicit rejection (without quantification)

    7. Explicit rejection (humans are less than 50% responsible)

     

    The study was based on 11944 scientific articles. The percentages, numbers and grafics vary somewhat from platform to platform.

    Numbers of articles that stated:

     

    Cat.1      64 = 0.54%

    Cat.2     922 = 7,72%

    Cat.3     2910 = 24.36%

    Cat.4     7970 = 66.73%

    Cat.5     54 = 0.45%

    Cat.6     15 = 0.13%

    Cat.7      9 = 0.08%

     

    2 and 3 are overlapping with 5 and 6 and should have been taken out of consideration as they do not say much.

    What was taken out is Cat.4 as it tells nothing about human influence. Non voters are not counted.

    Now we have 3896 articles out of 3974 that refer to Cat.1-3 and 78 to Cat.5-7. As said before the numbers vary in studies but here you got the  95+ % consensus (could be 97.1 as aggreed on). Is this science or an election?

    I think we should do everything possible to save our planet. Best for us

    I do certainly not believe in statistics of any kind.

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...
""