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.

The discussion is about human caused climate change vs natural and the methods used to make the measurements. Solid proven methods such as empirical observations vs computer models that have large ambiguities in the data flow. I have read what John Clauser has to say about how clouds have a large influence on climate and its mostly left out the equation of the computer models along with other factors and there’s a lot of influences on climate. Also including, believe it or not celestial objects, decaying material on land and in h2o sources, methane released from the ocean, etc… So the whole package needs to go through an objective observation theory before it can be reliable. It has yet to have been develop. The computer models can’t even get known observational data correctly, the data spikes are all over the map. And what other posters are pointing out is the reliability of IPCC and the handling of the data. And John Clauser may not have (yet) written or co-authored white paper on the matter it doesn’t mean that he can’t read the data and fully comprehend what it is in the data. I mean really-take a look at his impressive achievements-literally mind blowing and to put that at risk for a mere notion would be purely stupid, I don’t think he is stupid. I believe John Clauser has more insight on what is going on with organizations like the IPCC more than most are willing to admit, his work has shown to be reliable and if he is making waves then it’s worth paying attention to. So we have this guy with an impressive background standing up and criticizing the IPCC for shelling out conceptual hypotheses based on ideas and concepts fed into computer models measured by people in an office as opposed to real world empirical observation measurements. Yeah he’s going against the grain and annoying a lot of people, that is what science tends to do and that fact is written in history. There’s no disagreement that climate change is in progress, the disagreements are within what is the cause, is there a single cause and of what extent and what course and what the trajectories are. 1.1c increase in temperature over a 100+ years (even that has errors but mitigated) is correlated with human activities, not proven but correlated is the hypothesis. Now some here scream and yell “PROVE IT!!” “Give me a link!!” Prove what? That the IPCC should not be a source of information? That as of yet there is no computer model that is reliable to predict the future and evidently fails to provide an accurate report of known historical trends? Those links have been posted but no one here has the fortitude to do some reading. As I mentioned before-approaching with a predisposition will definitely fail any insight. The problem with science in this day and age is that academically predisposed ideas are interjected in the curriculum and that is where errors occur - actually not this day and age—oh no wait it’s always been that way-the taboo is there will always be independent thinkers that discover things about nature-discoveries that go against the norm. History has shown us that one countless times hasn’t it? But there’s no scene in arguing with a congregated heap that refuses to study objections-

Mass erroneous mindset is nothing new

I posted a link explaining, but you refuse to read and educate yourself. The preferred route is not to read but gripe in disagreement. Weird…

And a lot of the ev batteries are being farmed out to China and built in those beautiful facilities for “the greater good”

It is a complex variable. Steve Carson has a great explanation if you are interested in giving it a read. https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Yes it is one piece of a very complex system. There was no attempt to convey that the decomposition of organic matter is solely responsible for climate changes. But I can understand if someone is amped up on a single factor known as human activity.

If anyone from any viewpoint is genuinely interested in the complexities of the climate and atmosphere physics then I strongly suggest reading a blog by Steve Carson. He explains in practical terms and there is a lot of feedback from colleagues and scientists. But going in with a predisposed opinion nothing will be gained. There is a lot to read and learn to better understand and equip those who are sincerely interested. https://scienceofdoom.com/ and I will add that if you are here just to give an “opinion” derived from “sources” that used in the attempt to “convince” with impunity of your counterparts, then don’t bother

It’s an article that gives insight of the one of the complexities of the atmosphere. Read entirely, if you are genuinely interested in climatology.

It was a deduction of language. Does anyone know what gender and age bracket of the anonymous profiles here are?

I’m sorry it’s upsetting, but we can see your game. Good night and have fun twirling around in the addiction of trying to convince.