0james0

Update-Well we’re still together and she wants to marry and have kids, I’m not sure if I want to marry again-probably not. Still hasn’t ever bothered me for money, she works. I still don’t know why she’s hanging on me except she is obviously head over heels for this old fart.

What bank office? The chotana office puts some writings on my statement

Obviously you don’t read as noted by others. I don’t dislike the pinky card, I have absolutely no use for it, it takes up space in my wallet. All I need in my wallet are the 2 drivers license and credit cards. That’s it, simple isn’t it?

Good gawd-stroking each other. The person that started this post said it was required to have a pink card but didn’t mention why until later that it was NEEDED in order to open a bank account which of course isn’t required. Then the discussion turns into a little man’s pee match mainly by the 2 above who have essentially hijacked the discussion with narcissistic long winded blow hard raves self glowing chants about a pink card that is not NEEDED. I never carry my pink card, it’s stuffed in a drawer. Driving license in wallet. Photo copies of passport and yellow book in the phone. I only pull out my passport 1 day a year at the bank and immigration. I’m not buying cars and motorcycles all the time. I think it’s ridicules to rant and rave about a pink card that is rarely used. If someone wants one then great, but it’s really not necessary. As some mentioned, it might be more of an ego lift or maybe helps some of you foreigners feel more Thai ha-ha-ha!

Yes for sure you are very worked up about this. It looks like you are working and lobbying for the pink card company with your ever so heartfelt ranting and raving love for the pink card

I have one and never use it. The only forms of ID I ever use is the license passport and rarely yellow book

This is the junk science that you are so dear to and your beloved IPCC is a proven corrupt cabal, you know it and I know it, but the difference is the religious cult of narrow minded focus that impedes understanding. Your only source is from political activists that conflate the science but you can’t see that because you can’t understand it. I know it’s difficult for some people to pull out of their political atmosphere and study the facts objectively but for the “three” profile on this thread it’s an impossible task. As I mentioned before, a millennials dilemma and irreparable. Can’t fix stupid right?

Your inability to read the science proves nothing. All you ever post is political junk.

A valid suit dismissed by leftist political court. What you ignore is factual data that you’re incapable of understanding. Big oil, great stuff and we all love it even the hypocrites

The persistence to avoid and self educate is a fundamental flaw. The link you posted - Climate Feedback is an activist pseudo science hack group using activist “phd” as a scheme - they have lawsuits for disseminating false fact check information that is so endearing for the “Believers”. And Wikipedia, now that is an anonymous joke. As I said before, predictably - all you are interested in is posting recycled dead end junk instead of applying a real exercise. https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2022/09/19/researchers-hit-with-lawsuits-for-fact-checking-climate-claims/ https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/ Yeah right fossil fuel, imagine what life would look like without it.

Agree the thread is a frickin’ joke for sure. I’m not here to spar or influence, I just want to know if the theoretical “deniers” are capable of obtaining an empirical objective comprehension of the subject and at the very least deducing to plausible observational theory and capable of visualizing it in their heads. Instead of one-sided correlations of a hypothesis from mostly anti climate deniers websites that only exist for a single objective.

Once again your errors begin by isolating to what your ideology dictates. It is apparent many have no interest in reading and comprehending any of this because it doesn’t fit the ironed in narrative of continued redundancies and the continuous little game of gotcha. It’s blatantly obvious, insidious “willful ignorance.” https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/ A simple summary by a young researcher: https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/ After glossing over it and ignoring what is readily available throughout the internet to deductively gain knowledge and insight with empirical thought of the many facets of the subject, then just go back to the security blanket of singular -yeah-but yeah-but- arguments of the preferred comfort zone. It’s worth ignoring the insanely here until someone has developed the fortitude to bring an observation theory of human caused climate disruptions at a measurable magnitude of influence- that would pique my interest - then I’ll listen. Until then no insanity here is worth paying attention to— because the insanity of NetZero and such is not worth empaling the world economy and bringing disparity to the masses over a correlated hypothesis—that is just plain stupid. But whatever is eventually discovered short of economical major advancements in energy by a magnitude x10+, I would much rather live in a burning world of smog with fossil fuels and nuclear power plants to keep cool than a frozen world with a bunch of nonfunctional wind turbines useless solar panels and dead batteries of what you all are advocating.

Your errors begin where? At the beginning because you choose not to read what was posted previously. https://be scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/ Additional interesting read: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JD028901 What’s with asking the same counter productive question over and over without posing any clear observational theories, a millennials game is it? I have zero interest in educating anyone here, up to you and on your own. But I have no problem with pointing someone toward a broader direction.

No one is interested in repeating themselves in a perpetual redundancy. You can go back and read the previous link. those that scream the loudest are always in error

Yes, really. I suggest go do some serious reading and comprehension of what it is that you are trying to convey here because you have major gaps, your errors begin having faith in the IPCC, the organization you have loving cited so diligently here.