Gerontion

Had to check with my wife on this (who confessed that her knowledge only comes from watching crappy soaps) - apparently it's รับทราบ

^^ Yes, that's how I understand it ทราบแล้ว is equivalent to 'roger' and เปลี่ยน is 'over'. 'Come in' in this sense is (I think) riak (sorry no Thai fonts on this computer).

Adobe, rammed earth, cob and straw bale are all simple peasant technologies that use local materials and have very low embodied energy. There's a ton of information on the web about all of these. If you read Thai, you can start at http://www.baandin.org/web/ or at http://www.baandin.com/index.php. As someone said, your house probably won't be gracing the cover of Wallpaper but who wants to buy into that kind of one-upmanship? Build something beautiful and organic and be proud of it.

I wouldn't get too excited about the report as peak coal may very well be just round the corner: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2396

Building a few coal-fired power stations may keep the lights on for a few more years but in the fairly near future it's powerdown for everyone, whether you like it or not.

You can put down your copy of “The Sceptical Environmentalist”.

So how does Bangladesh adapt to the loss of most of their country? Come and camp in your garden? That’s very generous of you to offer. Or what about the collapse in crop yields? Or the spread of communicable diseases? Or the loss of homes through floods? Or the disruption to water supplies? Or the desertification of farming land?

The choice isn’t between dealing with starvation OR global warming. Every one of the problems you mention is going to be made massively more severe by climate change.

Of course, neither of the problems will be dealt with so it’s clearly a pointless argument. Self-interest will rule until it’s far, far too late to do anything about it.

No, don't. Michael Crichton is a science fiction writer, not a scientist. He has no relevant training. None. Zero. Zip.

A thorough examination (written by real scientists) of why State of Fear is execrable nonsense can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-of-confusion/

^^So are you claiming that concentrations of atmospheric CO2 haven't increased by a third on pre-industrial levels? Or are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or am I missing something? You see, when you get rid of all the rubbish about environmentalism being a religion or how awful Gore is or the how Kyoto was industrial sabotage aimed at the Americans, there are some basic facts that have to be dealt with. On the other thread about global warming, I posted a quotation from a joint statement issued by the scientific academies of dozens of countries, all of whom agree that the consensus view of the scientific community is that anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous. Even the American military (well known tree-huggers to a man) acknowledges this. If, however, you are privy to information of which the Royal Academy is ignorant, do please post it.

Wrong. It's an awful post that relies on the laughable argument, which unfortunately gets dragged out every time someone wants to deny the reality of climate change, that not knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing; stated as baldly as that, it's clear just how fallacious it is. The analogy with dice - the only attempt at anything approaching a fact - is just ridiculous. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm to 380ppm. Similarly, levels of CFCs, HCFCs, methane and other greenhouse gases have also rise; the dice are very much loaded. If you want to argue with the following quotation, then go ahead. I presume you have more than one PhD relating to the science involved.

“A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.”

Another excellent book is A Reference Grammar of Thai by Shoichi Iwasaki and Preeya Ingkaphirom, published by Cambridge University Press, although this goes for a heart-stopping £65.

I’ve just started reading Bridget Jones’s Diary in translation. I’m no fan of chick lit but it was in my local Oxfam and it was cheap. It suits my language level (fairly basic) and has the advantage of being very episodic so it’s easy to bite off self-contained two or three page sections. As the previous poster said, knowing the plot and understanding the background culture is a huge help in contextualising the story and allows you to guess a lot of vocabulary. Probably the hardest thing is reading the English words which are transliterated into Thai.

^^I’m in danger of veering wildly off-topic here but…hey ho.

I'm a regular reader of The Oil Drum (a fantastic website which is essential reading for anyone concerned about their future) and I almost agree with you about the peak being here, though I think that it’s still probably too early to be 100% sure. I also agree that Thailand is better placed to weather the storm but that ‘better’ is only relative to the extraordinary cul-de-sac which the West has driven itself down. On the positive side, as you said, Thailand produces a lot of food with localised distribution either there already or easily implemented, it is still a long way from the heavily oil-dependent infrastructure of the States, the extended support networks offer a significant cushioning to hardship and a large proportion of the population still possess the types of low-tech skills which will be in great demand in a few years. On the negative side, something like a fifth of the population lives in Bangkok, its foreign earnings are heavily dependent on tourism (sure to be one of the first casualties of peak oil) and its questionable how much capital will be around to finance a switch to non-oil energy. If peak arrives within the next few years, I think that it's unlikely that Thailand will escape without massive disruption to its economy and along with that will come all the social problems which this entails (for TV readers not the least of these will be a probable hardening of anti-foreigner sentiment.) I tend to be drawn to the doomer side of the forecasts but I do agree, from the little about it which I know, that one of the long-term positives for Thailand is the King’s promotion of the sufficiency economy.

Thailand imports something like 70% of its oil from the ME. Supplies are tight as it is (Saudi production seems to have plateaued and we may well be at or close to a global peak) so any further competition will not be good news for Thailand - I think it's a little unlikely that Thailand will be barging to the head of the queue ahead of the States, the EU and China. On the plus side, if, as is looking increasingly likely, we are at peak oil, everyone is stuffed so it doesn't really matter where you are.

Pun Pun (website above somewhere) do a VCD on making adobe houses and also run courses on it. There are details on their website and have a look at www.baandin.com and www.baandin.org (these two are Thai language). There’s also a thread on <URL Automatically Removed> about straw houses with a contributor who seems to know his stuff. I don't know much about straw bale houses in Thailand but judging by what I've found on the net, building with adobe doesn't seem to be that much of a problem in Thailand (at least I hope not - it's what I plan to do next year).

Why do you feel the need to put “know” in scare quotes? One of the people I was referring to teaches at Mor Nor, one at Chula and one at a provincial Rajabhat. Of course, this is an anonymous internet board so anyone could claim anything but are we to put everything which everyone says in quote marks because of this? After all, you have provided no more than I have to substantiate your claims. If you have some reason to doubt the veracity of what I say, fire away but please don't rely on sly innuendo to do what you can't do openly.

But more importantly which – exactly – is the point at which you wish to defend your argument? Through points 1 - 5 you try, by the most wild generalisations imaginable, to claim that the people I was referring to were either actually rather well paid or that their salary was insignificant (and, one can only assume, that I am thus a liar), then that the salary isn't, after all, very much but the fringe benefits are due compensation, then that “things aren't fair for them” (by which it is unclear whether you mean Thai teachers in general or the, by your account, presumably small number who aren't luxuriating in Croesian-like riches afforded by the 2,500 baht per hour teaching opportunities which flow like rivers of champagne through the faculties of Thai universities) and then that the comparisons which you have just made aren't of consequence anyway because we are “comparing oranges and apples”. Ten out of ten for covering your bases but it's not the most convincing defence one could imagine.

I'm not claiming that every Thai teacher is on the breadline but a large number of Thai teachers, who have qualifications to shame almost every foreign teacher in the country, earn substantially less than those who have, at most, a four week course which one could fail only by being catatonic at the time. Despite your protestations, very few Thai teachers have access to the types of money spinners which you claim and the overwhelming majority of junior teachers, who lack these qualifications, earn a pittance. The level of debt amongst Thai teachers is astronomical and every Thai teacher who I know who has an expensive car, carries a mortgage-sized loan to finance it. This fact is of direct relevance to any discussion of the salaries of foreign teachers. After all, if the situation were reversed and you were earning less than your Thai colleagues, you can be sure that that would be a whale-sized bone of contention.

What is the average salary of a Mattayom teacher? I don't know but I do know well three Thais teaching in the tertiary sector who have PhDs, two from British universities and one from an American university but all of which would figure in any list of the top five or six universities in those two countries. Their base salaries are substantially lower than the lowest salary which the most uneducated foreigner can expect, straight off the plane. I know a number of Thais who have recently graduated with MAs from probably the best British universty teaching Applied Linguistics. They will have to wait decades before they earn as much as the starting salary of a foreign teacher. Of course they all earn more than their base salary through private work and overtime but this work is readily available to all but the most hopelessly incompetent foreigner. I really cannot see how such extreme differentials can be so easily brushed aside.

Loaded, the first part of your statements, which I chose not to respond to originally, was false in my experience. In last full year of teaching, I was paid 287,500 baht for one full school year, and had to pay about 87,502 baht for visas. And, I was way, way too illegal. My Thai counterparts made from 216,000 to 396,000 baht per year, and they were legal. In other words, they made more than I did.

Which may or may not be true but is certainly not the norm. However, if it is true that

[flaming of moderators not permitted - IJWT]