.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
0james0
-
Posts
191 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by 0james0
-
-
On 1/24/2024 at 10:34 AM, amexpat said:
Here's one for fun.
I presented the one year statement from Bangkok bank. It showed 12 transactions marked
"foreign T/T". I had to go back and get at letter from Bangkok bank stating that theitems marked foreign transfer were, uh, foreign transfers.
Years ago the bank official added a handwritten note stating the FTT items in my book were foreign transfers.
He said "immigration knows this but they will pretend they don't".
What bank office? The chotana office puts some writings on my statement
-
20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:
This is a perfect example of why we 'suspect' you have a dislike for the Pink ID card...
You are switching context to deliberately obfuscate the discussion and have used this tactic repeatedly.
Given the content of your posts in other threads its obvious that you are not stupid which indicates in this thread you are being deliberately obtuse.
You'll be reminded that the point made is that Pink ID can be used as ID for over the counter transactions and you have falsely stated that it is illegal...
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?
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, BigStar said:
Please quote your imagined law that says banks can't accept a pink ID with a bank book for, say, over the counter withdrawals? Mine does. Oh, different bank workers including the manager herself.
DLT, in my experience. Yellow book, that is. Maybe you were blathering on about "legal ID" and migrant workers etc. etc. and screwed yourself.
46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:100% agree.. so many silly comments from Neeranam the intention of which appears to counter the usefulness of possessing a the Pink ID with misinformation, irrelevancy, speculation, and obfuscation.... and then repeating the same flawed generalisation and statements as if the repetition itself ads validity.
Yawn indeed... its like debating with a 5 year old !!!..
The regulation I saw way back (transliterated) states... "we must carry government issue Photo Identification at all times or be able to provide such within a reasonable time frame"....
(I'd like to be able to find that document which if I recall correctly was a translation of the actual law - but I've looked and can't dig it out).
Those with a Yellow House Book already have a Tax ID... so the Pink ID makes no difference to that whatsoever.
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!
-
1
-
-
On 1/22/2024 at 7:55 PM, richard_smith237 said:
Worked up.. nah....
.. Countering flawed generalisations in a topic on a forum designed for discussion... Yep !!...
Whats your input to the thread ?... anything of value ?... or did you just feel compelled to impart a dash of irrelevant kokwomblery ?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 1/22/2024 at 12:31 PM, scubascuba3 said:
Why do you want a pink ID card? really don't need one
I have one and never use it. The only forms of ID I ever use is the license passport and rarely yellow book
-
1
-
-
On 8/29/2023 at 11:11 AM, placeholder said:
But not so easy to find market models that do this:
"Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters."
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?
-
5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:
There are indeed natural forces that impact climate. Since 8,000 years ago, there has been a natural cooling trend. Apart from measurements, you have probably noticed that it was warmer during the Roman Empire than during the British Empire.
But, manmade pollution has generated so much warming that natural forcing factors have been overwhelmed.
26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:Your linked article talks about possible factors that could impact Stratosphere temperature. It does not explain why the Stratosphere could be cooling now.
Perhaps you could identify the money quote in the article that explains current Stratospheric cooling.
You do agree that the Stratosphere is cooling, right,
Your inability to read the science proves nothing. All you ever post is political junk.
-
18 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:
I suggest you re read your own link from Law.com
"A loose coalition of conspiracy theorists, libertarians and conservative groups have gone after those who have provided fact-checks used to counter misleading claims circulating on sites such as Facebook and TikTok"
“They make a point of going after the fact-checkers because, in addition to stopping regulation, they also want to prevent or discourage climate scientists from doing things that might educate the public,” said Lauren Kurtz, executive director at the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
Climate Feedback is one of those this group of conspiracy theorists has attempted to sue.
Is there some relevance to that remark and the fact that Patrick J. Michaels admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry....lol
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
-
2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:
Before accusing others of errors you need to check your own sources, they are a joke.
https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf
The above which is authored by Patrick J. Michaels is nothing but a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the models used in the IPCC reports and an old one from 2013 at that.
He's often on FOX news peddling false claims
On Fox News, Patrick Michaels falsely claims humans are only responsible for half of global warming
Not surprising really since he's received donations from energy companies and advocated on their behalf numerous times in the past. In fact he's even admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.
2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report"
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://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/
Yeah right fossil fuel, imagine what life would look like without it. -
On 8/23/2023 at 11:09 AM, Tippaporn said:
This thread is a joke for this reason. Climate change deniers say white and climate change believers say black. Climate change deniers say black and climate change believers say white. What a frickin' joke. You're not here to debate or to learn. You're here purely to espouse. That ain't debating.
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.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, placeholder said:
Once again, when you have no specific rebuttal, you resort to unsubstantiated allegations. You previously made a silly comment comparing scientific research to widely shared erroneous beliefs. It doesn't matter what the scientists allegedly believe. If the research rests on earlier research and comes up with results that correspond to reality, that's enough.
Let the critics come up with a theory that has better predictive power. So far, they've failed.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:
No, you didn't.
In response to my question of why the Stratosphere is cooling, you posted:
"It's a complex variable".
Which is no explanation. It's pretty obvious you don't understand atmospheric physics. If you think you do, please explain why the Stratosphere is cooling as the Troposphere warms.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, placeholder said:
The fact is that the models have predicted the outcome remarkably well. So all this other stuff is just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
"How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted," says the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley...
Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.
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
4 minutes ago, placeholder said:Once again, when you have no specific rebuttal, you resort to unsubstantiated allegations. You previously made a silly comment comparing scientific research to widely shared erroneous beliefs. It doesn't matter what the scientists allegedly believe. If the research rests on earlier research and comes up with results that correspond to reality, that's enough.
Let the critics come up with a theory that has better predictive power. So far, they've failed.
-
1 minute ago, placeholder said:
Really? In scientific research. Tens of thousands of studies that depend on the findings of previous studies are somehow going to work if those previous studies are false? The only way that works is if there is a deliberate conspiracy. Which is not to be confused with an erroneous belief.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:
The Global Warming hypothesis is the best explanation of the available data.
If you disagree, what's a better explanation?
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-
-
1 hour ago, placeholder said:
A huge international conspiracy involving tens of thousands of researchers. I wish I could say that who in the world could believe such nonsense? Now I know.
Mass erroneous mindset is nothing new
-
1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:
If Global Warming is not real, what is a better explanation for the Troposphere warming while the Stratosphere is cooling?
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…
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:
China opens an average of two coal-fired power plants per week. They don’t seem to care about global warming.
And a lot of the ev batteries are being farmed out to China and built in those beautiful facilities for “the greater good”
-
1
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:
Let's recap the bidding:
I asked you why the Stratosphere is cooling, and you replied with a link stating that the Stratosphere is cooling because CO2 traps heat in the Troposphere that normally would rise up to the Stratosphere.
Therefore, CO2, which is at record levels, due to human production, is warming the Troposphere.
It's not increased solar activity that is warming the planet.
Thanks for playing.
It is a complex variable.
Steve Carson has a great explanation if you are interested in giving it a read.-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:
Along with these two that are far more up top date, have a read:
A recently published study showed that among the overall sources of carbon dioxide in urban environments, a fraction is from decaying trees, lawns, and other urban vegetation. The contribution is modest – about one-fifth of the measured CO2 contributed by the urban environment – and varies seasonally. This was more than researchers anticipated and underscores the complexity of tracking urban carbon emissions.
"The research found that over the course of those two decades, living woody plants were responsible for more than 80% of the sources and sinks on land, with soil, leaf litter, and decaying organic matter making up the rest but they also saw that vegetation retained a far smaller fraction of the carbon than the scientists originally thought."
"that the ability of tropical forests to absorb massive amounts of carbon has waned in recent years. The decline in this ability is because of large-scale deforestation, habitat degradation, and climate change effects, like more frequent droughts and fires. In fact, the study, published in Science Advances, showed that 90% of the carbon that forests around the world absorb from the atmosphere is offset by the amount of carbon released by such disturbances as deforestation and droughts."
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
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
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, placeholder said:
You clearly didn't understand the article. It notes that it's a cycle. Leaves soak up CO2 and when they die their little corpses eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 is being recycled. So, ultimately the leaves aren't adding any CO2. For your benefit I have put the relevant portions into boldface.
"The colorful leaves piling up in your backyard this fall can be thought of as natural stores of carbon. In the springtime, leaves soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting the gas into organic carbon compounds. Come autumn, trees shed their leaves, leaving them to decompose in the soil as they are eaten by microbes. Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
And I see that you have no answer for the proof based on nuclear physics that the source of approximately 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels.
I could cite other reasons as to why your contention that leaves are responsible for the increase in CO2, but I'll leave it there unless you insist on further pursuing this nonsense.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:
I was responding to 0james0 because of his trolling remarks, stating to a male poster "Fair enough young lady"
But since you're now trolling to I'll leave you to it.
It was a deduction of language. Does anyone know what gender and age bracket of the anonymous profiles here are?
-
1
-
-
Just now, placeholder said:
. I showed exactly why your interpretation of the article is wrong and you come back with empty generalities. If you can't even decpher a simple and accessible research paper accurately, why should anyone believe your general claims at all.
In other words, you've got nothing.
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.
-
1
-
If you were looking for a new relationship today what age gap would you aim for and why?
in ASEAN NOW Community Pub
Posted
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.