BMTA Tightens Safety Checks on 809 NGV Buses to Ensure Public Confidence

[boomerangutang]

16 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Arctic sea ice may be declining faster than expected: study

The activists always trot this one out when they are feeling short of attention. Cue picture of lonely-looking polar bear. Even though the predictions always fail, it's always enough to capture the imagination of the dim-bulb end of the climate activist spectrum and emboldens them to throw silly abuse like 'denier' and 'idiot' all over the place. It always makes them feel better about themselves.

Perhaps some of the predicted dates are off, for when the NW passage will be navigable year 'round .  That's lamentable, but not bad science.  The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year.    If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice.  There are thousands of scientific indicators that Earth is getting warmer.   

 

15 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Climate change is natural.

To a significant degree, it's exacerbated by peoples' activities.  

 

Deniers are in two camps:

 

One camp, reluctantly concedes that there is a warming trend, but can't fathom how peoples' pollution can be a contributing factor. 

 

The other group doesn't want to concede that there's warming, despite a cavalcade of data showing there is warming.

 

Both groups think people, as a species, are too insignificant to affect anything on a global scale.  How wrong they are.  On a side note, here's a little pop quiz. 

 

Q:  Which phenomena moves more soil than the others?  

 

>>> earthquakes

>>> peoples' earth moving machines

>>> tides and waves

>>>  volcanos

>>>  wind

>>>  natural erosion

 

Answer:  Peoples' earth moving machines.  The answer may be '.....more than all the others combined.'   Yes, a person is small compared to, let's say, a volcano, but there are 7 billion of us, and millions drive earth-moving machines.   It can be compared to the ants in the Amazon basin.  Though they're one of the smallest life forms individually, when they band together, they're the most voracious species, ....more than jaguars, large snakes, anacondas or piranna fish. 

[Just Weird]

On 10/25/2017 at 6:58 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

And all the while there are people who do not believe that Climate Change is real.

 

Idiots.

 

Stinking idiots.

You're right, climate change is real but it has been happening for millions of years.  The idiots and stinking idiots (your fine choice of words) though are the ones that claim that it is due to human activity and that humans can alter it.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Just Weird

[ilostmypassword]

51 minutes ago, TimTang said:

Notice also that every Global Warmist on this forum instantly refers to any one that dares even QUESTION the theory as stupid, an idiot, child killer, antiEarth...and it just goes on and on. They are even considering jail terms for those that don't agree with their hypothesis. 

 

My posts prove that you're lying.

[Just Weird]

23 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The title of this thread seem like titles we've seen for the past 12 years.  The answer is 'yes.'  When the world warms, ice melts.   For GW deniers, there is nothing that will get them to see reason.  Even if all the ice melted in northern Canada, they would still find soggy reasons to deny it had anything to do with warming.   Trying to talk reason with deniers is like trying to explain to a toddler why we need to turn off the tap to an overflowing bathtub.

The fact is that there has been no significantly measurable global warming for a long time as evidenced by temperature measurements.

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

You're right, climate change is real but it has been happening for millions of years.  The idiots and stinking idiots Your fine choice of words) though are the ones that claim that it is due to human activity and that humans can alter it.

Infections have been happening for millions of years, ....but that doesn't mean that you don't treat & dress a wound.  Animals have been attacking people for millions of years, .....does that mean you don't protect yourself if a dog attacks you?

 

re; human activity:   what, in your sage opinion, is the cause of giant thick clouds of yellow smog over every Chinese city, and most other cities worldwide?  Are they collective toad belches?  ....farts popping out of the ground?

[Just Weird]

23 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Ok, here I go again.  It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old - what happens when he tips over his glass of milk.

 

We're not talking about climate for the past 4.5 billion years.   The climate issue at hand pertains to now and the ensuing 100 to 300 years.  A tiny fraction of the age of Earth.

 

People are overpopulating this planet.  They're living everywhere possible - even on landfills and in swamps and toxic zones.  In some cities, there are over 25,000 people per sq.Km.

 

1/4 of mankind is living within a meter of sea level, including half of Thailand.  A warmer planet = melting ice.  Melting ice = higher sea levels.  A warmer planet also = bigger storms and increased desertification, but don't let all that give you an aneurysm. Perhaps I'm putting out too much info for a simple mind to comprehend.   

Your simple mind needs to understand that there has been next to no warming of the planet for a long time.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Just Weird

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

The fact is that there has been no significantly measurable global warming for a long time as evidenced by temperature measurements.

 

2 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Your simple mind needs to understand that there has been next to no warming of the planet for a long time.

It's because we're so simple-minded that we ask for data to support contentions.  Where's yours?

[boomerangutang]

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

The fact is that there has been no significantly measurable global warming for a long time as evidenced by temperature measurements.

wrong.  I could pull up scientific charts galore from online, but it gets tiring after years of doing so.  Or read newspapers:  record high temps often reported.   But again, if you don't want to see something, you can close your eyes and ears and not see or hear it.  Trump fans do it daily, and I submit that Trump fans are also warming deniers and anti-science. 

 

I have a friend up here in Chiang Rai who is a Flat Earther.  I let him explain it to me recently.  I didn't argue.  At most, I gently countered his false reasoning with gentle admonissions that an adult might give a kid who thinks there's a dragon under his bed at night.  That's because the guy is a Brit, and I rarely see him, so I didn't want to create tension between us.  If he wants to believe that it's impossible to fly between Australia, South Africa, and Patagonia without having to fly over Europe (that was one of his proofs), then I'll just pat his pointy head and let him carry on.   Thankfully he and I aren't married.   Then it would drive me nuts. 

[Srikcir]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

cuddly polar bears (which are actually doing very well at the moment).

According to research:

• Polar bears are in serious danger of going extinct due to global warming. https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
• "The best estimates we've got indicate that we'll probably lose somewhere around two-thirds of the world's bears somewhere around mid-century, just based on the simple fact that we're losing sea ice," http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141107-will-polar-bears-become-extinct
• According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ice coverage is likely to fall below one million square kilometres by 2050. The current changes, and predictions such as these, led to the listing of polar bears in the US as an endangered species in 2008. ditto

Those cuddly cubs are alive today but will their offspring exist tomorrow? Goes from questionable to unlikely.

[Just Weird]

16 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

  The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year.    If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice.  

 

 

"The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year."

That just is not a fact.

 

"If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice."

And that is a million miles away from any truth or accuracy!  Near 100% of whom?

[TimTang]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Infections have been happening for millions of years, ....but that doesn't mean that you don't treat & dress a wound.  Animals have been attacking people for millions of years, .....does that mean you don't protect yourself if a dog attacks you?

 

re; human activity:   what, in your sage opinion, is the cause of giant thick clouds of yellow smog over every Chinese city, and most other cities worldwide?  Are they collective toad belches?  ....farts popping out of the ground?

I'm in total agreement with you in this matter. I've been in Beijing during the winter and have witnessed the unacceptable levels of pollution that are from manufacturing plants and huge apartment complexes which burn coal and spew smoke through simple chimneys with no scrubbers or any form of filtering what so ever. This type of behaviour is unacceptable for a county that claims to be the future world power.

 

On the other hand...do you think it's wise to punish ALL WESTERN SOCIETIES with huge taxes that make warming you home more expensive than rent or even mortgage payments? Both India and China have plans of building COAL fired plants that per/year are more than ALL coal fired plants in every western country combined. Coal plants in the west are very clean compared to those in India or China and by closing those in the west mean that the coal will be sold to them to burn with no pollution control what so ever. I could go on about Nuclear but you people HATE everything but the BIRD KILLERS...Solar and Wind!

[TimTang]

10 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year."

That just is not a fact.

 

"If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice."

And that is a million miles away from any truth or accuracy!  Near 100% of whom?

He's just extrapolating from the oft quoted "97% of all Climate Scientist agree that humans are creating Global Warming". The problem is that when you study the report they often refer to it actually amounts to 3%.

 

The only thing I can't argue with is Obama. He said the science is SETTLED! So that's hard to rebut coming from a man that said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; Period. If you like your heath plan, you can keep your health plan; Period". I mean REALLY...Obama wouldn't LIE about something THAT important; would HE?

Edited October 26, 2017 by TimTang

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

According to research:

• Polar bears are in serious danger of going extinct due to global warming. https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
• "The best estimates we've got indicate that we'll probably lose somewhere around two-thirds of the world's bears somewhere around mid-century, just based on the simple fact that we're losing sea ice," http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141107-will-polar-bears-become-extinct
• According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ice coverage is likely to fall below one million square kilometres by 2050. The current changes, and predictions such as these, led to the listing of polar bears in the US as an endangered species in 2008. ditto

Those cuddly cubs are alive today but will their offspring exist tomorrow? Goes from questionable to unlikely.

You're quoting the BBC and World Wildlife as "research"? Good grief.

 

Try reading the work of a scientist who does this stuff for a  living and has spent 20+ years on the subject.

 

https://polarbearscience.com/

[Just Weird]

16 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Infections have been happening for millions of years, ....but that doesn't mean that you don't treat & dress a wound.  Animals have been attacking people for millions of years, .....does that mean you don't protect yourself if a dog attacks you?

 

re; human activity:   what, in your sage opinion, is the cause of giant thick clouds of yellow smog over every Chinese city, and most other cities worldwide?  Are they collective toad belches?  ....farts popping out of the ground?

Jeez, talk about nonsense.  What are you going on about?  Now you try to justify your incorrect claims in your daft argument by talking about infections and animal attacks.

 

You're suggesting that my opinion, which is not an opinion, it is fact, is sarcastically sage, as opposed to yours, I suppose which is actually sage, yes?

 

Whether there are clouds of smog anywhere is irrelevant to the argument of whether climate change is significant or whether there is any evidence of 'global warming', the answers to those two point are either 'yes' or 'no'.  The answer to both those questions is 'no'.

 

'Toad belches' and 'farting ground' just diminishes your hardly existent credibility further.

 

[Just Weird]

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

It's because we're so simple-minded that we ask for data to support contentions.  Where's yours?

You know where it is, do your own research, it's easy to find.

[boomerangutang]

14 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"The fact remains that the globe is getting warmer, on average, year by year."

That just is not a fact.

 

"If you don't want to see the scientific numbers (and near 100% consensus), that's your choice."

And that is a million miles away from any truth or accuracy!  Near 100% of whom?

Are you trying to be just weird?

 

Maybe you need to go back to square one, or maybe you skipped climate class for the first semester:

 

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

[CGW]

On 10/25/2017 at 6:58 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

And all the while there are people who do not believe that Climate Change is real.

 

Idiots.

 

Stinking idiots.

Idiots indeed! if only we were all so enlightened :) personally I find those that don't see through the "smoke & mirrors to be the bigger "idiots"

But! they have the mainstream media to back their views

 

[Just Weird]

20 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

wrong.  I could pull up scientific charts galore from online, but it gets tiring after years of doing so.  Or read newspapers:  record high temps often reported.   But again, if you don't want to see something, you can close your eyes and ears and not see or hear it. 

Of course you could produce scientific charts galore but none of those charts will accurately show global temperatures from the past couple of decades increasing, because they're not.  One-off record high temperatures in particular places mean nothing when you're trying to claim global warming and climate change is attributable to mankind.

[MaeJoMTB]

23 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

1/4 of mankind is living within a meter of sea level, including half of Thailand.  A warmer planet = melting ice.  Melting ice = higher sea levels.  A warmer planet also = bigger storms and increased desertification, but don't let all that give you an aneurysm. Perhaps I'm putting out too much info for a simple mind to comprehend.   

When I were a lad (50 years back) I used to live near Brighton beach. If sea level were to change 12", the beach would have been gone and my old house would be underwater. But the beach is still there, in exactly the  same place, and my old house is unflooded.

 

If sea level hasn't changed (where I can see it) in 50 years .......... I ain't bothered.

I believe my own eyes, not someone looking to make money from 'scare' propaganda.

[Just Weird]

15 minutes ago, TimTang said:

He's just extrapolating from the oft quoted "97% of all Climate Scientist agree that humans are creating Global Warming". The problem is that when you study the report they often refer to it actually amounts to 3%.

Yes, I know what he was referring to, I just wanted to see him quote it. It is a false claim that was debunked a long time ago.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You know where it is, do your own research, it's easy to find.

Once again, it's time to tell the tale of Richard Muller. Muller is an eminent physicist who questioned the the scientific basis of the contention that temperatures were warming. Among other things, he didn't believe that climate scientists were adequately accounting for the heat island effect. Denialists were thrilled to have a potential ally and generously financed him to assemble a dream team of scientists and statisticians to review the temperature data to see if it was unfairly skewed. There was lots of anticipation among the denialists and lots of articles looking forward to their vindiciation. And the results of his research? He conclusively proved that climate scientists had got it all wrong and global temperatures were not increasing at all! The denialists were right after all! 

Just kidding. Actually, his exhaustive study exactly matched what climate scientists had been saying all along. Their measurements were correct. The global climate was warming.

Here's an excerpt from a piece he wrote for the lay public:

"Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

Oddly enough, most, if not all, of those articles and blog posts celebrating Richard Mueller and the imminent triumph of the denialists have disappeared from the web.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Yes, I know what he was referring to, I just wanted to see him quote it. It is a false claim that was debunked a long time ago.

And I'm sure you will provide evidence to back up your claim.

[Just Weird]

11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Maybe you need to go back to square one, or maybe you skipped climate class for the first semester:

I know what is happening with the Earth's climate so there is only one reason for me to back to square one and that is to inform you of what is actually happening.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I know what is happening with the Earth's climate so there is only one reason for me to back to square one and that is to inform you of what is actually happening.

Where do you get your info from? Are you sleeping with Mother Earth?

[boomerangutang]

20 minutes ago, TimTang said:

On the other hand...do you think it's wise to punish ALL WESTERN SOCIETIES with huge taxes that make warming you home more expensive than rent or even mortgage payments?

......I could go on about Nuclear but you people HATE everything but the BIRD KILLERS...Solar and Wind!

Regarding taxes and such:  Just because I believe in science, doesn't mean I'm behind every sort of response proposed by others.  There are 2 items at hand:  One is the science which proves GW is happening at an alarming rate, and much of it is human-caused.

the other item is what to do about it.  I have ideas about that, but it doesn't necessarily involve taxes.

 

As for 'bird killers' ....wow!   That's a new one.  I've been called a lot of unpleasant things, but never a bird killer.  Look up 'shrill'.    Oh wait, maybe you're calling solar and wind power generators 'bird killers'  .....wind kills a few birds, .....but solar?  Do you eat chicken? (hint; it comes from dead birds)

 

And nuclear:  wow again.  That's a big topic.  I actually wrote a book about Nuclear power and how Thailand shouldn't go nuclear.  I can't mention the book's name  here, because it's considered 'self-publicity', or something like that.  Nuclear is bad in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.  I don't think you want to discuss that right now.  It would take 50 pages just to warm to the topic (pun intended).

 

7 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Whether there are clouds of smog anywhere is irrelevant to the argument of whether climate change is significant or whether there is any evidence of 'global warming',....

Clouds of smog is relevant, because it's yet another proof of human activity tangibly affecting the warming trend of the planet.  I mentioned yellow smog clouding every Chinese city (and most cities ww) because deniers can't fathom that human activity can have anything to do with climate changes.  Indeed, Tim Tang (a denier) admits that Chinese cities are choking on man-made smog, but doesn't want to go on to add one and one together to equal two.

[Just Weird]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once again, it's time to tell the tale of Richard Muller. Muller is an eminent physicist who questioned the the scientific basis of the contention that temperatures were warming. Among other things, he didn't believe that climate scientists were adequately accounting for the heat island effect. Denialists...the denialists...The denialists...the denialists

I got as far as your new word, "denialists", which confirmed that there was no point in either taking your quote seriously or even reading further.

[TimTang]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once again, it's time to tell the tale of Richard Muller. Muller is an eminent physicist who questioned the the scientific basis of the contention that temperatures were warming. Among other things, he didn't believe that climate scientists were adequately accounting for the heat island effect. Denialists were thrilled to have a potential ally and generously financed him to assemble a dream team of scientists and statisticians to review the temperature data to see if it was unfairly skewed. There was lots of anticipation among the denialists and lots of articles looking forward to their vindiciation. And the results of his research? He conclusively proved that climate scientists had got it all wrong and global temperatures were not increasing at all! The denialists were right after all! 

Just kidding. Actually, his exhaustive study exactly matched what climate scientists had been saying all along. Their measurements were correct. The global climate was warming.

Here's an excerpt from a piece he wrote for the lay public:

"Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

Oddly enough, most, if not all, of those articles and blog posts celebrating Richard Mueller and the imminent triumph of the denialists have disappeared from the web.

As soon as you use the word "denialist" I refuse to debate with you. If you were debating the weight of an electron with a scientist and were confident that you had confirmed the TRUE mass, would you use ad hominem insults to address anyone that didn't agree with you? Or would you debate the subject like a gentleman with the understanding that you or both of you might be wrong?

[bert bloggs]

On 10/25/2017 at 9:40 AM, boomerangutang said:

Ok, here I go again.  It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old - what happens when he tips over his glass of milk.

 

We're not talking about climate for the past 4.5 billion years.   The climate issue at hand pertains to now and the ensuing 100 to 300 years.  A tiny fraction of the age of Earth.

 

People are overpopulating this planet.  They're living everywhere possible - even on landfills and in swamps and toxic zones.  In some cities, there are over 25,000 people per sq.Km.

 

1/4 of mankind is living within a meter of sea level, including half of Thailand.  A warmer planet = melting ice.  Melting ice = higher sea levels.  A warmer planet also = bigger storms and increased desertification, but don't let all that give you an aneurysm. Perhaps I'm putting out too much info for a simple mind to comprehend.   

And trying to explain to people like you is also like trying to explain to a 5 year old that in the 18th century the river Thames used to freeze over and they held fairs on it and you could ride a horse and cart over it . try doing that now a couple hundred years later .

[Just Weird]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And I'm sure you will provide evidence to back up your claim.

It's all out there for you to see but as you don't provide any credible evidence for your own claims and beliefs why would you believe actual facts if I did quote them?

[bert bloggs]

The one thing that you can always rely on when the scientists go on about climate change ,there is always one word you can rely on

 

 

COULD!!!!!