Tulak

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, let's just say that principia-scientifi.org is not exactly a reputable source. Except if you believe such articles as "Particle Physicist: 5G Is A Directed Energy Weapon System"

 

And of course, the article that you linked to has a dishonest title: 

"NASA: Extremely Low Sunspot Counts Indicate Global Cooling Onset"

https://principia-scientific.org/particle-physicist-5g-is-a-directed-energy-weapon-system/

The only cooling referred to by Nasa, and that's in a linked article, is in the upper atmosphere. Nothing that affects those of us living on land or on the sea.

There may be a weak link between lower sunspot activity and global cooling. But if so, that makes the case even stronger for greenhouse case caused global warming. You see, we are in a period of extremely low sunspot activity. The lowest for at least 100 years. But we are also in a period of rapid acceleration of the average global surface temperature. 9 out of the last 10 years have the highest average temperature on record. So if low solar activity does have the alleged effect, then something else is working as a countervailing force. Now what could that be? Hmmm...

Starting to think -so I gave you "Like". Keep it up!

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not just me. Scientists know better too. Because they actually did a big trial in Victoria comparing how areas that had been controlled burned to those that weren't fared in the Black Saturday Bush fires. Guess what? No difference. For ordinary bush fires it's a different story. And I think that in that case aboriginal knowledge and practice would be very useful. 

"For ordinary bush fires it's a different story. And I think that in that case aboriginal knowledge and practice would be very useful. "

indeed. Agree 100%

It only becomes a "Super fire" when (controlled burning) was neglected for a long time. And guess what. Where is fuel, there is a potential fire. More fuel, bigger fire. Combine this with low humidity,high temp. and strong wind, the fire gets very big and out of control.

This is why controlled burning is important. To my understanding "Greens" stopped this proven ancient Aboriginal practice. Needs to change.

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

At least now you're revealing the true source of your obections: conspiracy thinking. A global conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth. But you, an intrepid seeker after truth dug up graphs that show otherside.So those graphs you post aren't coming from scientists? Where do they come from? As usual, you are remarkably reluctant to show your sources.

correction: one of your graphs does identify the source.

Asking for sources? - so try this:

The Swiss National Science Foundation also published in early 2017 a research paper by the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, and the University of Bern that warned that particle and electromagnetic “radiative forcing” could cause Maunder Minimum low temperatures in “in 50 to 100 years’ time.”

Please click on weblink: https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-extremely-low-sunspot-counts-indicate-global-cooling-onset/

On 1/25/2020 at 10:42 PM, bristolboy said:

Which doesn't mean that controlled burning wasn't being done before. And given these extreme conditions, as scientists who study this know, controlled burning or clearing bush would have made virtually no difference. 

seems you know better

8 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

Quite a lot of going back and forth.

 

However, once again, anyone in support of the US presence in Iraq is either a blind nationalist or ignorant in terms of respecting international law not to mention the actual recent legislation by the Iraqi government.

 

Simple.

What labels me,  negates me.

Soren Kierkegaard

Yet. there are so many labels in these posts... ????

7 hours ago, mike787 said:

Why are you upset at the USA?

it looks like US bashing is quite popular in some circles. Lucky for it is America, but don't try to do the same to the country you (presumably) living now just in case stepping on somebody's toes. Certainly leave out tabu (-ed) top. 

On 1/26/2020 at 2:54 AM, mike787 said:

Without the US they are nothing.

yep. get out, but send us a lots of those lovely green pieces of paper ????

44 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

The definition of 'unnatural' is pretty much 'anything that was not part of evolution', which for practical purposes is pretty much 'anything which is produced by technology'.

It's not just a 'feeling' - the evidence is all around.

For example,  the invention of the gun, that suddenly gave humans an unnatural competitive advantage, allowing the killing of anything from a cowardly distance. The rapid obliteration of bison was a real and disastrous consequence. Nobody ever foresees the consequences of technology - they are on such a high with it that they are deliberately not looking, they deliberately don't want to know until it is too late to worry about it.

 

I call myself a naturalist - I've spent a large part of my life out there, knee deep in nature. I've seen the changes and much of the human activity that has caused those changes is perfectly visible. I extrapolate from that evidence. It's harder when we're talking about molecules in the air - both fear-mongering and apathy-mongering exist - there's a lot of noise to make sense of but one tries to make a rational objective judgement. You keep showing us that chart, but the future of the planet cannot hinge on one chart derived from who-knows-what methodology. I choose rather to believe the many scientists that have made a career-long study of the matter.

when natural supper-volcano pops and blankets the sunlight for many years resulting in massive crop failure and starvation, is this natural incident more acceptable?

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, the "evidence" is circumstantial, and full of assumptions, holes in testimony, testimony being hidden and clearly a partisan attempt to unseat a duly elected president. 

 

The backlash will be brutal. 

You may be right. We may even see the whole case will help the President to be re-elected.

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That's debatable as it definitely won't be by a majority of voters. 

I'd like to borrow your crystal ball. Pleaaaase

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Oh please. Everyone and their mother's cockapoo knows that the 45 cult of personality (and in their case FEAR) republican majority already made up their minds to acquit long ago. It's a total sham exercise. It's nothing like a real trial. It will be closer to a real trial if only FOUR republicans vote to hear witnesses. But the result is still preordained. 45 fans trying to sell an acquittal as real vindication are selling that big lie to the already converted. That will never fly with the majority of Americans. But yes, he can still win in 2020 (tragically). 

...But yes, he can still win in 2020 (tragically)... 

If he does, it will be "people power" - the Ultimate Jury

On 1/23/2020 at 1:54 PM, Ricohoc said:

Absolutely correct.

 

From the beginning, this has been an exercise to investigate the man to find a crime; and Democrats have even tried to criminalize legal behavior in order to GET TRUMP.

 

Example of criminalizing legal behavior?  Beginning in 2017, Democrats now believe that mounting a defense and executive privilege is now obstruction.  Today, Democrats believe that anyone accused has to prove their innocence; and everyone should always believe witnesses and their beliefs, suppositions and presumptions over factual occurrences that indicate otherwise.

...From the beginning, this has been an exercise to investigate the man to find a crime...

I like that.

On 9/28/2011 at 7:10 PM, Semper said:

Magic is the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science. Be it white or black.

"supernatural power", magic, laws unknown to science..."

Science knows very little about it. It's been ostracized for too long and no "respectable" scientist would touch it.

It is changing lately. Energetically we are all connected to some degree.

Keep your eyes open. This only beginning of science confirming what ancients knew for millennia.

1 hour ago, spinner2020 said:

I have no problem with death penalty for murderers, paedos and rapists* - as long as we are sure they are guilty, which in Thailand (and not only here) is hardly ever a foregone conclusion.

 

*I would add 'politicians', but I don't think we are allowed to....

Sad, but true ????

19 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

What I draw from all this. Tell me where I lose you:

- More CO2 enhances plant growth - which is nice - but too much CO2 produces global warming - which could conceivably collapse the whole system.

- There has to be CO2, but in proper, natural quantity in order to maintain the delicate balance of things.

- Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally into the atmosphere very suddenly (in geological terms).

- Such activity has unforeseen and knock-on effects, for example, it gets into the oceans and affects weather systems.

- Clearly the climate is extremely sensitive - we are still discovering that.

- The prudent, rational, intelligent thing is to get the balance right, which means not going too far too fast.

- The status quo - which is the goal of climate change deniers and guilt avoiders - is not an option.

- The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity to a rate at which the harmful effects can be dealt with by ingenuity/technology before the damage is done.

- Slow down or go down. The choice is everyone's.

Quote..."The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity"...

It sounds fine in principle. The question is implementation.

The most people on this planet wouldn't like to lower their standard of living.

Quite opposite. Great majority of people are trying to "catch up" with richer part of population. 

It seems that drastic reduction of global population may help - but I think that majority of people wouldn't want to depart this world voluntarily ????

Any suggestions?

There is a party I will go tonight, so please don't ask me to go first.

...and don't ask me after the party either...

22 hours ago, Chazar said:

I  was slagged  off for mentioning  a lot of those burnt trees  would  grow  back, someone spouted  sterile  soil at me..............great  it  means an easy ride for the eucs to get going again as  well as other plants https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51036608

can also check what NASA thinks about it 

This link's been posted b'fore, but I think it is important

https://www.climate.news/2019-04-26-nasa-declares-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth.html

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You seem incapable of understanding the phenomenon of rate. Even if your contention that life on earth faces extinction from too little carbon dioxide, the rate at which it is lowering means that C)2 level of 150 wouldn't be reached for thousands of years. What's more as scientists note, even if all burning of fossils fuels was put an end to, CO2 levels would still be rising for the next 100 years. 

And thanks again for not posting a link to your source for that dubious graphic.  Which is not surprising since I have found no numbers that come close to the claimed increases in yields posited by you. At least in respect to grains and roots which are the most important crops for humankind. God knows where you get this garbage from.

Also you seem to be suffering from the delusion that CO2 is generated from pollution-free sources. Do you believe that it all comes from bottles of soda pop? As a recent study showed, when coal power plants in the US were shut down, crop yields increased from those locales located downwind.

Shutdown of coal-fired plants in US saves lives and improves crop yields

Between 2005 and 2016, the shift away from coal saved an estimated 26,610 lives and 570 million bushels of crops

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106141445.htm

 

And that's in the USA where those power plants were subject to much tighter pollution controls than in the developing world. Whaddya think the effect of burning fossil fuels is going to have on crop yields where polllution levels are much greater? Ya got a dubious unsourced chart for that, too?

Ooohhh. This post will upset some people for sure...

31 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

Climate change is a 5 trillion dollar industry so anyone that challenges it’s existence or actual impact is censored either by people who have a vested interest in keeping the money train rolling or by the general public who have drunk the koolade.

 

We should be spending that money on Stopping pollution and cleaning up the planet, oceans etc. If there’s any change left we should cure cancer as well.
 

Pretty much all the armchair commentators on both sides of the argument are regurgitating “facts” they’ve read on the internet or seen on TV. They ( including me ) wouldn’t know squat about real climate science.

 

What I do know is when you think of the huge amount of money involved keeping the gravy train rolling, would you even consider that some of the data may be just a teeny tiny bit corrupted to support the popular position. Would you really be shocked if a Politician, government or a corporation manipulated data to support their position - or do you think that doesn’t happen in the real world.
 

Maybe climate change is just the latest boogeyman that governments use to keep themselves elected and the population cowered under their yoke. We had WMD, the Cold War,  the Domino theory, MAD, To scare us into submission and now we have climate change - It’s really the perfect killer app boogeyman as it can’t be quantified, you can spend unlimited money fighting it and no one will question it, and there is absolutely no accountability as nobody expects actual verifiable results to fix it.
 

Opposing the climate change movement is pure folly. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference it’s not going away so if you can Think of a way to profit from it good luck to you ( and let me know ) 

 

 

 

 

"Maybe climate change is just the latest boogeyman that governments use to keep themselves elected and the population cowered under their yoke."

Well put.

They found the new "whipping boy" now. It is so much easier to govern when the world's attention is distracted...

6 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

Sure stopping using fossil fuels will help stop pollution, I don’t know to what extent but sure it will help. We could also kill all the sheep and cows to stop them farting methane and we could eat all our vegetables on our plate and not throw them in the trash so they don’t create methane in land fills as well. Please add those to your list as I’m with you and want to contribute to stopping climate change in its tracks.

Not sure if this helps. Better enlist Greta.

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who apparently has drunk the Murdoch empire Koolaid about a lack of prescribed burning and other bush manageent measures. Actually the opposite is true. Basically, when the drought is this extreme, the bush is so dry, and the heat so high, no amount of clearing or burning will help. Here's a link to a post with evidence and a link of you care to look at it.

 

Cut&paste= Australia’s rural fire service and other land management organisations have begun to consult with indigenous groups as part of their burning regimes. But calls are rising for more indigenous oversight of fires and land management.

40000 years experience, so it makes sense.

18 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

trump’s behaviour has caused the current crisis. There is no situation he cannot make worse. 

Bad man. So bad... 

22 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yet another trump achievement, bravo sir..

Trump or not Trump, fighting in that region goes on for millennia and it is unlikely going to stop.

US should to pull out and let locals to deal with their new situation the best way they know, but it will not be nice.

Especially after "Friday Prayers".

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Looks like a big snow job. How green is SE Australia now?

As bad as it is, this devastation represents only a small patch on the Globe.

Besides - (Australian) bush management practiced by local Aborigines was effective way to remove accumulated fuel before it caused real havoc as we see now. I believe Aborigines are forbidden to manage the bush any more and also fire brigade has strict restrictions.

Anybody here to join "Green Party"?  

On 12/31/2019 at 3:21 PM, Isaanbiker said:

No naked, or half naked girls to post? 

Wasn't traditional outfit for girls in Thailand going topless? 

To my understanding it only changed after Europeans arrived.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.