Is Thailand Value for money

[Just Weird]

28 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Are you trying to be just weird?

That's very clever...from someone who calls himself 'boomerangutang, Danish pastry member'.

[boomerangutang]

20 minutes ago, TimTang said:

I particularly love the Global Warming photo of a Polar Bear stranded on an iceberg which is supposed to bring us all to tears. They fail to mention that polar bears often use an iceberg as home base while they're fishing. They also fail to mention that there have been recorded incidents of female polar bears swimmin 450 to 500 miles with a cub on her back. Why is it absolutely necessary to use LIES to maintain their narrative? 

Polar bears are having a tough time.  They could be extinct in the not-too-distant-future.  They're supremely adapted to frigid climate.  Because of GW (yes, I still use the old nomenclature), they're having a tough time doing what they're adapted to doing:  hunting on ice floes to catch seals.

They can't go much further north.  

And swimming 450 to 500 miles?!   That's a long way!   It's very tiring for a hairy mammal to swim long distances.  It's sad if she has to swim that far to try and find food.   I've seen photos of polar bears which are so thin, they look like they may not make it through the night. 

[Just Weird]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Where do you get your info from?

Well, clearly it comes from a better source than yours.

[MaeJoMTB]

12 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

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 .

First frost fair 1607, last one 1814. It was an abnormal climate effect, not the norm (and they only had 7 in that time).

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/

Edited October 26, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[Just Weird]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Polar bears are having a tough time.  They could be extinct in the not-too-distant-future.  They're supremely adapted to frigid climate.  Because of GW (yes, I still use the old nomenclature), they're having a tough time doing what they're adapted to doing:  hunting on ice floes to catch seals.

They can't go much further north.  

And swimming 450 to 500 miles?!   That's a long way!   It's very tiring for a hairy mammal to swim long distances.  It's sad if she has to swim that far to try and find food.   I've seen photos of polar bears which are so thin, they look like they may not make it through the night. 

More nonsense, polar bears are doing fine.

[bert bloggs]

18 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

First frost fair 1607, last one 1814. It was an abnormal climate effect, not the norm (and they only had 7 in that time).

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/

Abnormal climate effect , so a bit like the melting ice in the Artic and the arrival of more ice in the Antartic .

[boomerangutang]

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

More nonsense, polar bears are doing fine.

No they're not.  Get informed.   On the other hand, if you're determined to be anti-science, then no amount of scientific data is going to sway you from your fixed opinion.

[MaeJoMTB]

5 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Abnormal climate effect , so a bit like the melting ice in the Artic and the arrival of more ice in the Antartic .

That may well be, but  humans played no part in the climate changes, and didn't have the ability to alter the events.

More likely sun activity that causes the changes, and supposedly the sun is going into a quiet cycle, so now we can look forward to a period global cooling. Time to worry about sea levels falling, and putting up taxes to fund the building of more coal power stations.

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/

 

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity. The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715."

 

Goody, more frost fairs.

Edited October 26, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[TimTang]

29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

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

Really?...You actually believe that spec?...you haven't actually researched where it came from and why it's BULL$HITE? 

 

You continue to believe...that's OK...we sympathise.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

No they're not.  Get informed.   On the other hand, if you're determined to be anti-science, then no amount of scientific data is going to sway you from your fixed opinion.

That's what is known in the trade as psychological projection....

 

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/10/01/fat-healthy-polar-bear-update-hundreds-of-not-starving-bears-attracted-to-dead-whale/

 

[Srikcir]

14 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

we can look forward to a period global cooling.

Not a debate among Climate Scientists:

Humans are causing rapid global warming with no end in sight.

https://skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm

[TimTang]

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Polar bears are having a tough time.  They could be extinct in the not-too-distant-future.  They're supremely adapted to frigid climate.  Because of GW (yes, I still use the old nomenclature), they're having a tough time doing what they're adapted to doing:  hunting on ice floes to catch seals.

They can't go much further north.  

And swimming 450 to 500 miles?!   That's a long way!   It's very tiring for a hairy mammal to swim long distances.  It's sad if she has to swim that far to try and find food.   I've seen photos of polar bears which are so thin, they look like they may not make it through the night. 

Where are you from? I live in Canada and believe me there is no shortage of Polar bears. I would kill the first bastard that came near me because they are HUMAN EATERS. If there was any shortage of polar bears we would be the first to know. Where are you getting your information from. The Canadian government tracks their population and there is no reason for concern. If I came across a polar bear I'd be eating polar bear steaks, burgers, and sausages for the rest of the winter.  You are being manipulated by the leftwing media. 

 

"I've seen photos of polar bears which are so thin, they look like they may not make it through the night." That's really unusual because polar bears live FOR EVER! YES... that's true, they live for millions of years and if they could speak?...what stories they could tell. 

 

Did it ever occur to you that polar bears get old and die; just like HUMANS?

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

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. 

I can't let this go without a comment or two.

 

The continents are moving apart some 2 to 3 cm a year. That's a lot of land being moved about the earth.

 

Ants are instictive. They do what the others are doing at the time. Once one of them thinks 'why bother' it's game over.

 

Most species that have lived on the Earth have died out although some have mutated into other species (that's how we got here).

 

Piranahas are only really dangerous when they hunt, or defend, in large numbers.

[boomerangutang]

23 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

That may well be, but  humans played no part in the climate changes, and didn't have the ability to alter the events.

More likely sun activity that causes the changes, and supposedly the sun is going into a quiet cycle, so now we can look forward to a period global cooling. Time to worry about sea levels falling, and putting up taxes to fund the building of more coal power stations.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity. The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715." Goody, more frost fairs.

MaeJoMBT opines: "That may well be, but humans played no part in the climate changes, and didn't have the ability to alter the events."

 

Boomer responds:   wrong.   

[RickBradford]

Quote

Humans are causing rapid global warming with no end in sight.
https://skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm

 

The SkS Kidz site is a favourite among activists because it tells them everything they  want to hear.

 

In the rational world, it is regarded as about as credible as the Sunday Sport, which puts out headlines like "WWII bomber found on Moon!!!"

 

Citing SkS Kidz as a source does nothing but undermine your position.

 

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

I can't let this go without a comment or two. The continents are moving apart some 2 to 3 cm a year. That's a lot of land being moved about the earth.

I suggest you go back are re-read what I wrote re; earth moving.  I didn't mention continental drift in my question & choices of answers.  You make an interesting point though.   

 

Still; getting back to the original premise:   Deniers thinking people are so insignificant, that they cannot have any effect on climate.  

It's not believable any more than believing Saddam's torching of all the oil wells in Kuwait had no effect on air or water quality around the Persian Gulf.

 

[TimTang]

57 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Abnormal climate effect , so a bit like the melting ice in the Artic and the arrival of more ice in the Antartic .

Actually the melting of ice in the Arctic and the arrival of more ice in the Antarctic is NORMAL...not Abnormal. It's typically cyclic as with most climate changes.

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by TimTang

[Srikcir]

15 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The SkS Kidz site is a favourite among activists because it tells them everything they  want to hear.

As related from climate scientists. The site sponsor does not purport itself to be an expert but reports on what experts have concluded, including references.

[TimTang]

31 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I suggest you go back are re-read what I wrote re; earth moving.  I didn't mention continental drift in my question & choices of answers.  You make an interesting point though.   

 

Still; getting back to the original premise:   Deniers thinking people are so insignificant, that they cannot have any effect on climate.  

It's not believable any more than believing Saddam's torching of all the oil wells in Kuwait had no effect on air or water quality around the Persian Gulf.

 

I was living in Al Khobar when Saddam torched the oil wells and I would be the first to say that "YES it effected air quality around the Persion Gulf." It didn't effect the water quality though. I'm not sure how you put that in there. I was approximately 300Km south from where it happened.  I can attest, it was bad, we knew when it happened but it went away. It didn't change the climate, I can assure you of that because I lived there for another year. I was actually THERE, so what point were you trying to make?

Edited October 26, 2017 by TimTang

[lovelomsak]

I find this idea that the ice will be gone by 2040 hard to believe. 

  I lived in the high Arctic for 2 years. We had to measure the thickness once a week,using  an auger.. It was 10  to 12 feet thick. Not all measuring is done by satellite We lived in the most northern area ice breakers go to in the world.The ice breaker usually had a 2 week window in August when it could break through and deliver her goods and get out before  it would be frozen in.

  In my humble opinion we do have global warming but the Arctic ice will be here long after 2040.

[owl sees all]

There is enough of this debate over charts and 'fact' and 'proof'. Here are a few thoughts that might save the human race in the very near (10k years) future.

 

If we were to build a solar farm the size of Spain (Catalan included) we could forget oil and nuclear energy. There is enough sunlight shone on the earth during any 24 hour period. to meet the energy requirement needs of all humans x 10,000. 

 

The tides of the world are enough to power all human energy needs many times over.

 

Wind is here to stay. The least effecient of the big three. But the easiest to start up.

 

Polar bears will still be around when humans have settled the debate on climate one way or the other. They have them in zoos all over. If polar bears have to move from the Arctic maybe the seals will become dominant and grow bigger. Maybe McDonnalds will be doing a polar bear cheeseburger soon. As our Canadian poster might say; yum yum!!

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by owl sees all

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

In my humble opinion

... you saw what you saw. But in the bigger picture it's not determining.

Typically when people think about climate change they think about thinning ice, but the warming action also loosens ice and broken icebergs can travel long distances on ocean currents.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/climate-change-study-1.4157216

 

[TimTang]

8 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

I find this idea that the ice will be gone by 2040 hard to believe. 

  I lived in the high Arctic for 2 years. We had to measure the thickness once a week,using  an auger.. It was 10  to 12 feet thick. Not all measuring is done by satellite We lived in the most northern area ice breakers go to in the world.The ice breaker usually had a 2 week window in August when it could break through and deliver her goods and get out before  it would be frozen in.

  In my humble opinion we do have global warming but the Arctic ice will be here long after 2040.

OK...but the issue is...is global warming a bad thing? The Vikings used to grow grapes to make wine on Greenland, which is now basically a chunk of ice. In all human history global warming periods were the most peaceful and prosperous periods but now we're being told that we're evil and must pay taxes for our sins for all the damage we've done to our planet. The people that are perpetuating this evil agenda want us all dead or be paying exorbitant rates for what little energy we can afford. They hate that we can drive around in cars and survive in our heated houses even though it's freezing outside. The Globalist want us DEAD. They want an Earth with 500 million total population where they rule and live comfortably while the rest slave to comfort them. That means they have to kill 6.5 BILLION people for that to happen. I don't want to be around when that happens. The global warming scam is just an initial attempt to get rid of a few billion through energy deprivation. The ones on this forum promoting it are just useful idiots. When tyranny rules they're always the first to be executed. If they're willing to commit treason against their own civilisation then they can't be trusted in any newly created civilisation. It's funny how they never seem to get that yet they always call US idiots.

[lovelomsak]

22 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

... you saw what you saw. But in the bigger picture it's not determining.

Typically when people think about climate change they think about thinning ice, but the warming action also loosens ice and broken icebergs can travel long distances on ocean currents.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/climate-change-study-1.4157216

 

 

Looks like I need to help you understand this better.

  First of all icebergs are freshwater ice, from glaciers or  an iceshelf.,they are not from  sea water.

 I have climbed many icebergs stuck in the Arctic ice. I believe the OP was about sea ice not freswater ice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

The people that are perpetuating this evil agenda want us all dead or be paying exorbitant rates for what little energy we can afford. 

 

Yes, the Green/Left's ultimate nightmare is cheap, clean, reliable energy for all. Already, leading figures like David Attenborough call humanity a "plague" on the earth, others refer to humanity as a "cancer".

 

If they thought it through, however (not a chance) they would realise that cheap energy leads to development, and development leads to people having less children. Just compare birth rates in Japan with those in Uganda.

 

No need for anyone to be sacrificed to feed the poor  little poley bears.

[owl sees all]

31 minutes ago, TimTang said:

<<snip> The people that are perpetuating this evil agenda want us all dead or be paying exorbitant rates for what little energy we can afford. They hate that we can drive around in cars and survive in our heated houses even though it's freezing outside. The Globalist want us DEAD. They want an Earth with 500 million total population where they rule and live comfortably while the rest slave to comfort them. That means they have to kill 6.5 BILLION people for that to happen. I don't want to be around when that happens. The global warming scam is just an initial attempt to get rid of a few billion through energy deprivation. The ones on this forum promoting it are just useful idiots. <snip>

A refreshingly honest appraisal/opinion there. 

 

And who is behind this; Jusuits and Zionists. And their tools; the FED, IMF, WTO, Bk-int-sttlemts, B-of-E and religion.

 

The fundamental Muslim crowd are playing right into their hands.

 

These people's biggest barrier is knowledge and truth, atheists and anti-theists.

 

Humans get off your knees.

Edited October 26, 2017 by owl sees all

[digger70]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Here we go again,  having to (try to) show the difference between 200 years and 200,000 years  (hint: you take away 3 zeros).  It's the difference between the length of a cue stick to the width of a city.  Deniers can't see it, but their efforts to appear smart are showing them to be daft.

 

 If you were a doctor, and were asked about a particular cancer outbreak in a nearby school,  would you then go and talk about the history of cancer from cave man times, including cancers in mammals and reptiles? 

 

I don't think so.  Because all the while you're giving a long dissertation about the history of cancer on earth, kids at the school are getting sicker and dying.

Looks that you are the Daft one , Numerous scientists say that no one can prove that the so called warming of the planet is induced by man,,Ok no one can disprove this either...So shut up,  it's a DRAW un till proven otherwise Time will tell (100,000 years)

[MaeJoMTB]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

There is enough of this debate over charts and 'fact' and 'proof'. Here are a few thoughts that might save the human race in the very near (10k years) future.

10-20 years and I'll be gone, don't care  beyond that.

Even if I did care, 10k is 3x recorded history of man, the future for the Aryan (my) race isn't looking so good, in another 200 years the world will be brown Muslim. They like deserts, enjoy.

Edited October 26, 2017 by MaeJoMTB

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Looks that you are the Daft one , Numerous scientists say that no one can prove that the so called warming of the planet is induced by man,,Ok no one can disprove this either...So shut up,  it's a DRAW un till proven otherwise Time will tell (100,000 years)

For most of human history no one could prove that the sun would rise in the east.  There was lots of data supporting the assumption, but no proof.  Human caused global warming is in the same situation.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, TimTang said:

I was living in Al Khobar when Saddam torched the oil wells and I would be the first to say that "YES it effected air quality around the Persion Gulf." It didn't effect the water quality though. I'm not sure how you put that in there. I was approximately 300Km south from where it happened.  I can attest, it was bad, we knew when it happened but it went away. It didn't change the climate, I can assure you of that because I lived there for another year. I was actually THERE, so what point were you trying to make?

How can you say "it didn't affect the water."   How can so much sustained oil burning NOT affect bodies of water nearby?  I bet if you were a shrimp or crab in the Persian Gulf, you might think differently about that.  Do they even have much aquatic life left there?  I wouldn't be surprised if the Persian Gulf is as devoid of life as the Dead Sea.

 

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

I find this idea that the ice will be gone by 2040 hard to believe. 

  I lived in the high Arctic for 2 years. We had to measure the thickness once a week,using  an auger.. It was 10  to 12 feet thick. Not all measuring is done by satellite We lived in the most northern area ice breakers go to in the world.The ice breaker usually had a 2 week window in August when it could break through and deliver her goods and get out before  it would be frozen in.

  In my humble opinion we do have global warming but the Arctic ice will be here long after 2040.

When were you there?  All scientific studies in the Arctic region, since the 90's have recorded steady ice loss.   That's not to say it doesn't ebb and flow with the seasons.  Instead, it's the trend.

There's also methane bubbling up in many places where it didn't before.  Normally, methane is ice-like in cold conditions.  Now that the Arctic is heating up, ....more methane.  Methane is several times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2.  Currently, humans are causing the release of about 7 billions TONS of CO2 annually, and that number also, keeps going up. 

There are also many shallow lakes at Greenland where there weren't lakes before.  Most of those lakes drain into glaciers (not on top, but down to grade).  That's also a new phenomena.  It hastens the melting of glaciers - snow and ice which won't be replaced in our or our grandchildrens' lifetimes.  Glaciers all over the world are receding and getting thinner.

 

57 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

There is enough of this debate over charts and 'fact' and 'proof'. Here are a few thoughts that might save the human race in the very near (10k years) future.

If we were to build a solar farm the size of Spain (Catalan included) we could forget oil and nuclear energy. There is enough sunlight shone on the earth during any 24 hour period. to meet the energy requirement needs of all humans x 10,000. 

The tides of the world are enough to power all human energy needs many times over.

Wind is here to stay. The least efficient of the big three. But the easiest to start up.

North Africa is not far from Europe, in terms of transmission wires.  N.Africa is mostly desert with lots of sun. Solar farms could be set up there, though I prefer passive rather than PV.  Probably the main 3 reasons that concept has not been taken seriously:

>>>  people, in general, don't give enough credence to solar - though the US Army is investing big time in solar.

>>>  European financiers don't want to invest in N.Africa.  Unreliable and understandable.

>>>  There's efficiency loss in long distance transmission lines.  That's fathomable.

 

There is some interesting work being done in Bonnie Dune California (pop. about 65) re; wind.  A guy there has a team building a wind harnessing contraption which would work high in the stratosphere, where 70 mph winds blow nearly non-stop. The problem is not the technology (it's been proven), it's the safety issue re; air traffic.  If they can figure a way around that, it's an intriguing way to harness energy.