Orac

I have deleted my own post as I was replying to Cognos and it was not the right place to do so in view of the events that have taken place.

A slight detour --

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...true&cat=15

What do people think about the idea of pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere from both poles through 24 km garden hoses floating in the air via balloons? This simulates major volcanic eruptions which provide about a year of cooling. Lets face it, we are not going to stop carbon emissions anytime soon, and even if we stopped cold turkey right now (impossible) much of the existing global warming causing carbon will last for hundreds of years.

This garden hose suspended on balloons pumping sulfur dioxide idea carries risks. If we try it, we won't really know the effects until then, even with thorough modeling and testing. However, as man made global warming is real, if such options prove promising, and global cooperation over carbon remains way too slow, what real choice (other than fiddling while Rome burns) would we have other than to take this kind of risk? It is only a stopgap emergency tactic until we figure out a way to really become carbon neutral (which clearly can't happen for many decades).

This sulfur dioxide pumping idea is big. We will likely be hearing a lot more about this.

To the global warming skeptics, you are really irrelevant and I don't know why people waste time arguing with your conspiracy theory silliness. The proof is there that man has caused this situation. The only major question is how many years we have before massive disaster, such as the Gulf Stream just stopping.

It is certainly something worth exploring though there is a lot of opposition from environmentalists including Al Gore who apparently has describe the idea as 'nuts'.

I posted the attached links on JRTs climate change rant thread a week or two ago that has a few more details plus a link to the realclimate website which is against the idea.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6879251.ece

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...comment-page-7/

Since the political will does not appear to be there at the moment to deal with the issues we face with regards to the environment, of which I am not convinced that CO2 emmisions are neccessarily the most pressing/serious then it will make us far more reliant on a technological solution in the future, be it energy issues or geoengineering, and it would therefore make a lot of sense to be funding this research seriously rather than all the spending on 'hot air' at the moment.

Sorry Mick - never tried it.

Trying to get the kids DVD playing in the rear monitor - can't do it!? The DVD only plays on the front monitor....guess it's time to start going through all the setting to find out how to do that.

If it is the same as mine you need to select AV setup and then select the '2' tab on the top ('1' tab is for the front screen). This should allow you to select the screen input (set to DVD). For some reason the front screen seems to automatically select the input but the rear screen I have to set depending on DVD or ipod video.

I am totally disgusted at what these 'world leaders' have managed to achieve at Copenhagen and how they can pass it off as anything other than a disaster is beyond me.

At least those here on TV that argue the warmist case make an effort to fight their case and stand up for what they believe in rather than the pathetic display of leadership that we have just witnessed.

I suppose a lot of it has to do with the nature of your surroundings and your comfort level within them. As has been stated by others, the community spirit in our small village is far removed from anything I have seen in the UK and it appears to be more of a case that, not only does everyone know everyone else but everyone seems to have decended from three familys here with many links between them - it is virtually impossible here to find anyone who cannot be expressed as related in some way.

Also, rather than take my lead from the media and what I hear from other sources which seem to thrive on a climate of fear and worry, I am happy with my own observations of the people surrounding my daughter, particularly the other children in the village where, despite there being a lot of poverty, the kids are all healthy, polite and well behave. Despite the poor conditions here they have clearly being well brought up and are a credit to their parents - if I can do as good a job as they have then I will be a very happy.

I think you may be overreacting a bit here. I am in a similar position to you be the sound of things having a 9 month old daughter however, I am very greatful for the support we get from the people that live around us, including the men. If our girl crys for more than a couple of minutes one of the neighbours will appear to see if there is a problem. Also, since she still is not sleeping through the night and waking up at 6am, it is great to be able to step outside our front door first thing in the morning and within a couple of minutes someone will come and take her off me for an hour or so which gives us an ideal break first thing in the morning.

As far as abuse is concerned, as a previous poster stated above, everyone in the village knows everybody else (apart from me that is!) and, yes, there are some characters I wouldn't trust near her but the ones that I do trust know them far better than I do!

I must say that I almost agree with you on the levels of hygene in the village what are a far cry from western standards, however, it doesn't seem to be doing the locals much harm and, by being exposed to a slightly harsher environment at a young age is not neccessarliy a bad thing and will hopefully make her more resilient as she grows older.

The one thing I am very sure of is that we made the right decision to spend the first couple of years after she was born in the village with the natural support structures that it offers rather than elsewhere in Thailand or the UK. Unfortunately the one major thing lacking here is the access to a good education.

They probably hold on to them just to annoy us. I know that, as a Brit, if the rest of Europe vote to get rid of 1p and 2p coins the UK population would probably be up in arms no matter how useless they were.

Is this it??

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Help-Please-...ed-t322776.html

Um, guys, its nearly 2010 not 1010. Women stopped being chattel a few years ago. Get over it.

your term,chattel has to do with treating woman badly, not women being a certain way.

Have you considered investing in a new dictionary?

Whether our governments respond properly or not is a totally separate issue than about the truth of the theory.

Indeed so.

Although they are technically seperate issues what would you say is the more important one - what we do about it or if it is true or not. Surely if you are taking the position that it is an incontrovertable truth then the actions we take should be far more important. To just argue the existance of AGW seems like a pointless exercise if we are not looking at the options we have for dealing with it unless the aim is to be able to say 'I told you so' in a few years.

It's a very good point and, as you say, something which everyone ducks. I remember reading on The Oil Drum someone pointing out that if you point out to most environmentalists "I've just heard the remainder of the Larsen Ice Shelf is disintegrating" they will unanimously be unhappy; if you say "the recession's over and the economy's growing", they'll - probably - unanimously be happy. This doesn't make any sense because - as sure as eggs is eggs - a growing economy is bad news for the Larsen Ice Shelf. There's a lot of talk about the green economy, green collar jobs, green growth but that all strikes me as <deleted>. How can, for example, we expect the British economy to be in 40 years time using 10% of the fossil fuel it currently uses and this not to have consequences for the economy? A healthy economy needs to grow at something like 2 or 3% per annum. That means doubling in size every 25 to 35 years. And doubling the size of the economy means, if not doubling, at least increasing dramatically inputs, including energy...but the world is a finite place. You can't grow indefinitely in a finite environment. That's obvious. A hundred years ago, economic growth had only a relatively slight impact on the global environment and it was possible - it probably even made sense - to ignore it. That's no longer the case. We need to convert very rapidly to a steady state economy and that poses very serious, in fact almost certainly fatal, consequences for capitalism. Your second point about poverty is also valid. Wealth inequalities and poverty survive because of economic growth. Without economic growth you have a hel_l of a problem and the only solution is wealth redistribution, both within and between nations. It means - for the West and elites in the global South - getting a lot poorer. Well, tough shit.

Of course, I don't expect this to happen; countries go to war for an awful lot less (as this decade has shown, as if it needed any more evidence). I can't imagine that in a choice between giving up wealth now and bequeathing a damaged world to our children later, anyone other than a small majority is going to select the former.

Personally I don't believe that the global governments have the balls to make the decisions required of them IF AGW is as real and dangerous as is being suggested though, since they are shouting their green credentials from the rooftops, we should get an indication of how much of this is hot air by seeing what decisions come out of Copenhagen.

I would be interested in knowing peoples thoughts on the linkage between economic growth and climate change. They appear to be treated as two seperate subjects, however, surely there is a correlation between economic growth which basically seems to involve more and more consumption of raw materials, including the fossil fuels, that it is argued are having a significant effect on the climate unless there are significant technological changes ahead, specifically on the energy front.

The UK government seems very much behind the current climate agenda, however, both major UK political parties have stressed that there primary concern from a policy perspective for the upcoming election is the economy and, apart from the blip in interest in climate change brought on by Copenhagen, the media still seems focused on the importance of economic growth worldwide.

Another arguement being made is that economic growth is a major factor in lifting the poor of the world out of poverty with China leading the way but needing to achieve growth of 8% just to maintain the current status quo.

I am not looking to deflect the AGW arguement to an economic one but as neither a scientist of economist would be interested to know if one debate can be as totally divorced from the other as appears at the moment.

A few days ago there was a post about a rider which died in a similar accident in udon.Can't find the post anymore.Are we talking about the same accident or not.

Sounds very much like the same accident- condolences to the friends and family of the deceased.

Moral of the story- NEVER assume you have the right of way when you're on a bike. Regardless of the color of the light, the consequences of failing to LOOK before you proceed through an intersection can be fatal.

RIP

The other thread about this (if indeed they are the same accident) read as if the threads author witnessed the accident.

I cant find it either.

is this the post being refered to:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Beware-Ridin...amp;hl=accident

Since Marshbags states that the lorry driver didn't stop it may be a different incident.

JR, you forgot to include the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction in your list of organisations that received funding from Exxon-Mobil.

If that is true--and BIG OIL does often play both sides of the fence--is clear that the scientists are not being influenced by money. That is because they are responsible........they focus on the science.........they don't sell out to BIG OIL.

...snip...

This is a claim by Exxon Mobil themselves as per the following link;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nse-exxon-mobil

To be fair it does not say when or how much and could easily been seen as a red herring to establish some slightly greener credentials - equally the claims to have funded MIT, Brookes and Princetown can be discounted as it does not say if the funding was climate specific. However, I cannot find anything that refutes the claim which strikes me as odd.

JR, you forgot to include the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction in your list of organisations that received funding from Exxon-Mobil.

Have you denial artists read this?

Associated Press reports

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../i045626S28.DTL

To be honest JT for every report that says they are harmless there is another one that says they are not. One point that does concern me though is when I see the term 'stolen' used for documents that should have been in the public domain and subject to the freedom of information act anyway which sounds to me like a cover up.

JR is passitonate about the subject and supports his arguments with data and links. I can understand why that would be "tedious" to some. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

The only thing "tedious" about JR's links is that he posts the same ones page after page ad infinitum!

I applaud his enthusiasm (however misguided it may be), and would never accuse him of being a "paid lackey" of the Warmers. Pity the Warmers can't stop throwing that allegation at those here who oppose them, reminds me of how some Yellows used to accuse anybody who didn't subscribe to the view that Thaksin was the devil incarnate of being in the pay of some shady Hong Kong based PR firm!

Perhaps JR would gain more respect if he were to answer some of the valid doubts raised here, and not reply to them with his usual "cut-and-paste" torrent of links.

To be fair, JR has done that for the last two questions I have asked him, the first of which I have to admit was meant sarcastically but I was given a fairly comprehensive answer to. Respect where it is due.

I am not entirely sure about your arguement above JRT as it seems to imply that a reduction in energy consumption, and therefore potentially pollutants/greenhouse gases, has already been significantly acheived through technological development which is still going on. Are you now saying that this problem could go away on its own?

Not really..........CO2 and fossil fuel energy consumption is on the rise. Both will continue to rise as the human population increases. Given that it would be totally inhumane to leave billions of people wallowing in extreme poverty, energy consumption must increase to pull them out of poverty.

Given present fossil fuel technologies, that is, of course, problematic because of the release of CO2.

Many people (e.g., Al Gore) is saying we have all the technologies we need to "solve the global warming problem." He is right, but what I am saying is that if we are going to make a transition from fossil fuels, why not go all the way?

Why not attempt to skip over the transitional energy systems and develop something that will truly improve the quality of life for all and solve our environmental problems. I want to see personal energy systems.........localized........decentralized..........something the Energy Mafia can't control.

You have your own toaster, oven, refrigerator, car, motorcycle, boat, washing machine, computer, etc.........WHY NOT HAVE YOUR OWN ENERGY DEVICE?

If you say we can't do it........we can't do it. I am trying to point out that in the past we often said we can do it..........and did it (e.g., going to the moon). There are many examples. And no doubt we can develop a personal energy system that is safe and environmentally sound, and (important) inexpensive.

We will do this one way or another at some point during the 21st century.........we should do it now.

This will lower the cost of everything.........it will allow us to work less.........it will solve our environmental problems........it will create too many jobs to count.

The supporters of the Energy Mafia will say it will cost us a fortune. What is costing us a fortune is continuing down a destructive path. Acting irresponsibly to future generations is costing us in terms of military spending (1 trillion per year thrown away on that)........it is costing us in terms of environmental pollution and health.......it is setting up a situation that will lead to future generations having to spend, spend and spend some more to address the costly mistakes we are making now.

Here is an idea: Stop all income taxes.......not more taxes on work. Introduce a carbon tax and shift some of our military spending to a global R&D project to develop a personal energy system.

We can do it. You just have to demand it and make sure politicians focus on it (along with population reduction).

I must say that I agree with you here and that technology should be something that is on the table and suitably funded especially in view of the consequences IF global warming exists be it man made or otherwise. One thing that could be done by the international community, as well as finding the money to fund this, could be to remove patents/copyrights from technologies that may prove useful in finding a solution.

Since you view that a technological solution may be possible to solve the energy issue, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts regarding geoengineering to find a solution to climate change as there still appears to be a great deal of conflicting thought on this. I have added a few links below which argue both sides of this though I am sure you can direct me to more like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/02/02...ring&st=cse

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6879251.ece

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...comment-page-7/

I am not entirely sure about your arguement above JRT as it seems to imply that a reduction in energy consumption, and therefore potentially pollutants/greenhouse gases, has already been significantly acheived through technological development which is still going on. Are you now saying that this problem could go away on its own?

While I do believe that the Climate is being influenced by man, in a negative way, I know that the politicians of the world are incapable of doing anything to affect meaningful change, before a catastophic event occurs. It will take a major city being threaten, before the world will act. It is sad, but it is reality. You put a frog in a pot of water and increase the temperture slowly, he sits and boils to death, because he is not aware of the rising temp until its too late. Drop him in a pot of boiling water, and he hops out immediately. So it is with people as a group.

To be honest I don't think even that woud do it - many blame climate change on what happenned to New Orleans.

If the problem truly exist to the extent some would have you believe, then the changes that needed to be made to global society would need to be severe and substantial to the point of being a fundemental change to life as we know it. Such measures as global governance and law which would need supercede national laws and priorities and an effective measure of policing such a change would need to be put in place so that a reduction in emissions, consumption and population can be managed down. I do not think this is a case of the consequences of us facing up to the fact of global warming are too harsh to contemplate and therefore we need to bury our heads in the sand, it is just that I would like the science to be a bit more convincing and overwhelming than it is before such draconian sacrifices need to be made.

"No, the science is unsettled, acting as a cover to impose new taxes"

I cannot believe there are so many republicans on this forum to see twisted percentages like this. The governments may have failed in some parts of battling the climate change by imposing foolish taxes or supporting wrong kind of means. I do think media along with Al Gore are making it sound frightening to sell more newspapers but leading scientists do not disagree about the subject itself. 9/11, evolution vs. fundamentalists go in the same category with people who do not believe in global warming.. denialists, not sceptics.

And there we have it.

Nothing to do with science. It's all about politics.

I thought he was using that often used thai political argument that if you don't believe in climate change you do not support the monarcy - either that or we are all being accused of being American

Also there are a number of very non pc forums here in thailand that i assume you haven't come across yet and I would hesitate to name them here - strangely enough they tend to centre around Pattaya!

Yet unstrangely enough you know them.

Believe or not we are all non PC, we are human beings with all our faults and frailties and predujice, like it or not - deny it or not, is one of them.

I associate with the people I like, I assume we all do as well, therefore I am predujiced against those people I don't like. The only thing the PC brigade can force me to do is be even handed in my dealings with others, they cannot force me to like them.

Nulli illigitimi carborundum as the spoof latin phrase goes.

I must admit to being a member of several of the 'non pc' forums and do find them quite refreshing at times! I was just trying to point out to the OP that if he wants to find more 'non pc' forums in Thailand he doesn't need to do much more than type 'forum' and 'pattaya' into a search engine. Clearly they might not be to everyones tastes but there again, that is entirely up to the individual.

why was it flying in Thailand you ask? does everyone already forgot that there is an insurgency STILL GOING ON down south and that some influential and rich people, like the one hiding in Dubai, would greatly benefit from the current government not being able do do anything about it (for political and business reasons).

just my way of seeing things from another perspective .....

So instead of looking at the obvious - there is no big secret about North Korea supplying arms to Myanamar, in fact, wasn't a whole boatload of the stuff stopped recently, you are going for it being Thaksin arming the muslim insurgency in the south. Is there no end to this mans evil intents!

One thing to point out is that you are making an assumption that the online communities here are a fair representation of the expat community as a whole - a large number of expats I know could hardly be called pc and equally would not be found here on TV or many of the other forums.

Also there are a number of very non pc forums here in thailand that i assume you haven't come across yet and I would hesitate to name them here - strangely enough they tend to centre around Pattaya!