Dtac reaffirms commitment to 5G roll out

[snoop1130]

Dtac reaffirms commitment to 5G roll out

By THE NATION

 

DTAC CEO Alexandra Reich demonstrates the 5G test to PM Prayut Chan-o-cha at the Dtac booth.

 

Total Access Communication (Dtac) is fully committed to roll out the 5G broadband wireless service in Thailand, said the company's chief executive officer Alexandra Reich on the first day of the government-hosted Digital Thailand Big Bang 2019 event at Bangkok International Trade and Exhibition Centre (Bitec) today(October 28).

 

Dtac is waiting to see the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC)'s complete roadmap of the 5G spectrum allocation and the final licensing terms and conditions of the auction. 

 

Telecom operators and Information and Communications Technologies companies are showcasing advanced technologies, including 5G, at the four-day event. 

 

"Dtac's strategy is driven by the ambition to humanise digital technology for customer experiences and an empowered society. 5G promises to provide significant benefits to citizens, business, and the public sector. To fully capture the benefits of 5G, collaboration between businesses and public agencies is strongly required to unlock the full potential and promote a more inclusive Thailand," Reich added.

 

"In support of 5G connectivity in the future, dtac has been exploring services beyond mobile connectivity such as smart agriculture. Dtac is demonstrating our commitment and readiness to apply advanced technology to benefit people's lives in a connected society," she added.

 

Telenor Group, Dtac's major shareholder, has been appointed as EU's project coordinator to accelerate the uptake of 5G across Europe for the first commercial service launch in 2020.

 

The 5G use cases span across vertical industries, such as fish farming and Fixed Wireless Access or FWA. Recently, Telenor Group has become the first mobile operator to integrate 5G into its mobile network, allowing anyone with a 5G mobile phone to access the super network of the future in Elverum, Norway.

 

It is also continuing to expand 5G network in several locations in Norway this year, such as Fornebu, Trondheim, Bodø (selected base stations), Oslo (selected base stations), Askvoll, Svalbard, Kvitfjell, Herøya and Frøya.

 

The Dtac pavilion at Digital Thailand Big Bang 2019 is presenting the concept of a "Never Stop" station. It includes the hands-on experiences of 5G on 28 GHz spectrum on a mobile phone, to show the full potential of 5G that is expected to shape a new behaviour of internet users in Thailand.

 

The NBTC intends to complete bidding on 56 licences for spectrum bands of 5G wireless broadband service by early February.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/business/30377822

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-10-28

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

Introducing such RFEMF technology operating at the MgHz frequencies it will be without sufficient independent testing on its potential hazards to human health is astoundingly myopic and foolhardy.

 

When profit trumps public health you know that society is in the sh**ter. Heaven help us. ????

 

'We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)… and has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.'

 

'Before 2G, 3G, and 4G, radio frequencies were benign. We never worried whether or not our drive-time radio shows would fry our brains. Sadly, once the concept of wireless “G” technology was initiated, we began exposing the global public to frequencies akin to microwaves at 1 billion cycles per second.'

[Krataiboy]

The way this latest heap of 5G PR bullsh-t reads, one can only assume it was churned out by a AI-enhanced journalistic cyborg.

 

No mention here of the well-documented health risks to us human guinea pigs. Not a word about how the technology enables the ultimate Big Brother surveillance state, a la China.

 

It is time to wake up and smell the ruses being used to con us into becoming guinea pigs for an untried, untested technology which may pose a more prescient threat to the environment than climate change.

 

The radiation dangers inherent in 5G are understandably being played down by most governments, the mobile comms industry and the mass media. All of them stand to make a killing from the roll-out of a technology up to 100 times more powerful than its predecessors.

 

Thousands of concerned scientists, doctors and environmental groups have petitioned the UN, EU and individual nations for a moritorium on 5G, to enable comprehensive independent safety checks to be made.

 

But their protests have fallen mainly on deaf ears among politicians, the Press and a public brainwashed by media hype into believing 5G will transform their lives. It undoubtedly will, but not in the way most of them imagine. 

 

https://www.corbettreport.com/5g/

 

 

 

[khunken]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

The way this latest heap of 5G PR bullsh-t reads, one can only assume it was churned out by a AI-enhanced journalistic cyborg.

 

No mention here of the well-documented health risks to us human guinea pigs. Not a word about how the technology enables the ultimate Big Brother surveillance state, a la China.

 

It is time to wake up and smell the ruses being used to con us into becoming guinea pigs for an untried, untested technology which may pose a more prescient threat to the environment than climate change.

 

The radiation dangers inherent in 5G are understandably being played down by most governments, the mobile comms industry and the mass media. All of them stand to make a killing from the roll-out of a technology up to 100 times more powerful than its predecessors.

 

Thousands of concerned scientists, doctors and environmental groups have petitioned the UN, EU and individual nations for a moritorium on 5G, to enable comprehensive independent safety checks to be made.

 

But their protests have fallen mainly on deaf ears among politicians, the Press and a public brainwashed by media hype into believing 5G will transform their lives. It undoubtedly will, but not in the way most of them imagine. 

 

https://www.corbettreport.com/5g/

 

 

 

I don't disagree with you about possible health impacts of 5G which are unclear. But it is totally hypocritical to support a pause in 5G while advocating an anti-global-warming stance when so many more scientists have recognised it and have data to prove it is happening, especially close to the earth's poles.

 

As for the Corbett report - what a load of US anti-China nonsense. It has the usual Huawei & ZTE claims that they 'could' be used for surveillance. The US NSA et al already have world-wide surveillance via the internet & satellites & back-door entries into CISCO routers.

 

An awful lot of the IOT conspiracy rubbish is purely a big brother attempt to prevent competition.

[Krataiboy]

There's nothing hypocritical in my pointing out some of the potential drawbacks 5G, which will arrive on our doorsteps long before a real or imaginary climate apocalypse.

 

You scathingly describe the Corbett Report on 5G as "anti China nonsense", but fail to produce a single fact to support your conclusion.

 

It would also be helpful to know the evidence for your assertion that concerns over IOT amount to "conspiracy rubbish" aimed at stifling competition.

 

Did you actually watch the video?

[khunken]

16 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

There's nothing hypocritical in my pointing out some of the potential drawbacks 5G, which will arrive on our doorsteps long before a real or imaginary climate apocalypse.

 

You scathingly describe the Corbett Report on 5G as "anti China nonsense", but fail to produce a single fact to support your conclusion.

 

It would also be helpful to know the evidence for your assertion that concerns over IOT amount to "conspiracy rubbish" aimed at stifling competition.

 

Did you actually watch the video?

No 5g will arrive sometime soon. Climate change is already affecting the world, from extra strong hurricanes & typhoons to melting ice to overall warmer temperatures in many places including Bangkok where I live. It's not an apocalypse the science deniers like to trot out as their effort to mock it and the worst features of it can be avoided with proper measures put in place to prevent it which many people around the world are advocating to big business controlled governments.

 

As for the 'Corbett report I didn't watch the video but read the transcipt and below are just 2 of the many usual US anti-China pieces (of sh!te) therein. In fact, leaving out the health aspect, which I'm neither for nor against, it reads just like the sort of muck that comes out of the current White House in order to protect US companies from competition. 5G is the driver of the IOT which is why I mentioned it.

 

 

JADEN URBI: Huawei wants to become a major player in 5G outside of China. But it’s facing pressure internationally because of cybersecurity concerns dogging the company. The U.S. is urging its allies to block Huawei from 5G projects in their countries.

ELIZABETH LEE: [Zvi] Marom says China is using mobile technology as a tool for spying, and he’s seen the evidence.

 

 

[Krataiboy]

11 hours ago, khunken said:

No 5g will arrive sometime soon. Climate change is already affecting the world, from extra strong hurricanes & typhoons to melting ice to overall warmer temperatures in many places including Bangkok where I live. It's not an apocalypse the science deniers like to trot out as their effort to mock it and the worst features of it can be avoided with proper measures put in place to prevent it which many people around the world are advocating to big business controlled governments.

 

As for the 'Corbett report I didn't watch the video but read the transcipt and below are just 2 of the many usual US anti-China pieces (of sh!te) therein. In fact, leaving out the health aspect, which I'm neither for nor against, it reads just like the sort of muck that comes out of the current White House in order to protect US companies from competition. 5G is the driver of the IOT which is why I mentioned it.

 

 

JADEN URBI: Huawei wants to become a major player in 5G outside of China. But it’s facing pressure internationally because of cybersecurity concerns dogging the company. The U.S. is urging its allies to block Huawei from 5G projects in their countries.

ELIZABETH LEE: [Zvi] Marom says China is using mobile technology as a tool for spying, and he’s seen the evidence.

 

 

You are being a little unkind to Mr Corbett. I can assure you, from years of following his various blogs, he is no US shill or Chinaphobe. He tends to tell it like it is, coolly and objectively, which is why I and many other thinking folk take him seriously. He invariably provides detailed references, enabling people like yourself to find whether he is stating facts or merely opinions - a habit more of us should adopt, perhaps?

 

As regards "climate change", the term is a rather silly oxymoron probably dreamed up by the same PR outfit which sought to persuade us of the dangers of "global warming"  - until the earth (inconveniently, as multi-millionaire con man Al Gore might put it) stopped warming up for a decade and a half!

 

Climate is natural phenomenon which has caused our planet to heat and cool at regular intervals ever since its creation, irrespective of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and long before Man stumbled out of the Garden of Eden to build his dark satanic mills.  Increases in CO2 (a miniscule contributor to so-called greenhouse gases) historically succeeds rather than precedes, temperature rises.

 

How many climate change disciples are aware that The Medieval Warm Period was warmer and lasted longer than the "global warming" spell of experienced in our lifetimes - a reality which the IPCC and top climate scientists have conspired to keep under wraps, along with other evidence which contradicts their alarmist predictions.

 

My belief, after years of research, is that the climate catastrophe scenario being dutifully pedalled by the corporate-owned mass media is a fraud aimed not at "saving mankind" but at subjugating humans and everything else on earth to the whims of the wealthy business elite whom you rightly identify as being in control of our governments.

 

Though we may vigorously disagree on some aspects of both subjects under review, I appreciate your thoughtful input . Should you be at all interested in accessing any of the research material I have accumulated on both subjects by all means PM me and I would be happy to respond.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

My belief, after years of research, is that the climate catastrophe scenario being dutifully pedalled by the corporate-owned mass media is a fraud aimed not at "saving mankind" but at subjugating humans and everything else on earth to the whims of the wealthy business elite whom you rightly identify as being in control of our governments.

 

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

How many climate change disciples are aware that The Medieval Warm Period was warmer and lasted longer than the "global warming" spell of experienced in our lifetimes - a reality which the IPCC and top climate scientists have conspired to keep under wraps, along with other evidence which contradicts their alarmist predictions.

Spot on, I couldn't agree more. Many fanatics including the IPCC climate alarmist lobby (of which there is a large number of professionals in the field that oppose them) are very quick to disregard these axioms and who conveniently overlook the fact that we have had about as many u-turns on this subject and the perceived trajectory of so called 'climate change' since the 1920s, as most of us have had hot dinners. 

 

Here are some headlines and excerpts from articles, journals and scientific papers on the issue of climate change (global cooling & warming) from a reputable site. The very fact of the mercurial nature of this debate has lead to the IPCC and they're corporate sponsors / grant funded scientists changing the name of the whole issue to 'climate change' rather than global warming - they eschewed this very misleading moniker some years back in favour of the more ambiguous aforementioned one.  

 

1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post

1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age

1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT

2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

[Krataiboy]

11 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

Spot on, I couldn't agree more. Many fanatics including the IPCC climate alarmist lobby (of which there is a large number of professionals in the field that oppose them) are very quick to disregard these axioms and who conveniently overlook the fact that we have had about as many u-turns on this subject and the perceived trajectory of so called 'climate change' since the 1920s, as most of us have had hot dinners. 

 

Here are some headlines and excerpts from articles, journals and scientific papers on the issue of climate change (global cooling & warming) from a reputable site. The very fact of the mercurial nature of this debate has lead to the IPCC and they're corporate sponsors / grant funded scientists changing the name of the whole issue to 'climate change' rather than global warming - they eschewed this very misleading moniker some years back in favour of the more ambiguous aforementioned one.  

 

1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post

1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age

1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT

2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

Thanks for the additional ammo. Unfortunately, with schools systematically indoctrinating youngsters into the climate change cult, we heretics are facing a long uphill struggle. Keep up the good work!

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Should you be at all interested in accessing any of the research material I have accumulated on both subjects by all means PM me and I would be happy to respond.

I'd take you up on that offer. PM me whatever you have in the way of links etc. Many thanks!

 

21 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Keep up the good work!

Cheers mate. You're quite right, it is now seen as a heretical position, but once upon a time so was the world 'being spherical', we all know that hidden agendas are the driving force behind such positions being marginalised and others remaining mainstream. This needs exposing whenever possible.

[khunken]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

You are being a little unkind to Mr Corbett. I can assure you, from years of following his various blogs, he is no US shill or Chinaphobe. He tends to tell it like it is, coolly and objectively, which is why I and many other thinking folk take him seriously. He invariably provides detailed references, enabling people like yourself to find whether he is stating facts or merely opinions - a habit more of us should adopt, perhaps?

 

As regards "climate change", the term is a rather silly oxymoron probably dreamed up by the same PR outfit which sought to persuade us of the dangers of "global warming"  - until the earth (inconveniently, as multi-millionaire con man Al Gore might put it) stopped warming up for a decade and a half!

 

Climate is natural phenomenon which has caused our planet to heat and cool at regular intervals ever since its creation, irrespective of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and long before Man stumbled out of the Garden of Eden to build his dark satanic mills.  Increases in CO2 (a miniscule contributor to so-called greenhouse gases) historically succeeds rather than precedes, temperature rises.

 

How many climate change disciples are aware that The Medieval Warm Period was warmer and lasted longer than the "global warming" spell of experienced in our lifetimes - a reality which the IPCC and top climate scientists have conspired to keep under wraps, along with other evidence which contradicts their alarmist predictions.

 

My belief, after years of research, is that the climate catastrophe scenario being dutifully pedalled by the corporate-owned mass media is a fraud aimed not at "saving mankind" but at subjugating humans and everything else on earth to the whims of the wealthy business elite whom you rightly identify as being in control of our governments.

 

Though we may vigorously disagree on some aspects of both subjects under review, I appreciate your thoughtful input . Should you be at all interested in accessing any of the research material I have accumulated on both subjects by all means PM me and I would be happy to respond.

As a conclusion to this debate-argument, I'll just make a few points.

1. I have not researched the health effects of 5G yet - but I will but decline your offer of research material as I'd prefer to start with an open mind.

2. Al Gore, one of the few honest US politicians, has been ridiculed and vilified by the science deniers who - from a US perspective - have made out that he is the 'father' of climate change which he is not.

3. In no previous period of history has huge volumes of CO2 & other harmful gases been spewed into the atmosphere is a century & a half period.

4. I strongly believe in Newton's 'every action has an equal opposite reaction'. It has been proven time & time again with the horrendous London smog of the early 20th century, acid rain all over the world from, especially, burning coal & the ban/reduction on chlorofluorocarbons in repairing the hole in the Ozone Layer. It is not a huge leap to understand that the climate will react to the effects of the industrial revolution and thereafter.

5, Far too many of the denier 'experts' are in the pocket of some aspect of the energy & industrial industries. They have the same sort of useful academics that the cigarette manufacturers funded to deny their harmful effects.

6. The renewables industry & its lobby is miniscule compared to the energy industry & its lobby (even leaving out the manufacturers)  so suggesting 'big business' is behind the climate change is a downright lie. The opposite is what's true.

 

Note: I'm always happy to see yout posts Kratiboy even when I don't agree with you.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, khunken said:

As a conclusion to this debate-argument, I'll just make a few points.

1. I have not researched the health effects of 5G yet - but I will but decline your offer of research material as I'd prefer to start with an open mind.

2. Al Gore, one of the few honest US politicians, has been ridiculed and vilified by the science deniers who - from a US perspective - have made out that he is the 'father' of climate change which he is not.

3. In no previous period of history has huge volumes of CO2 & other harmful gases been spewed into the atmosphere is a century & a half period.

4. I strongly believe in Newton's 'every action has an equal opposite reaction'. It has been proven time & time again with the horrendous London smog of the early 20th century, acid rain all over the world from, especially, burning coal & the ban/reduction on chlorofluorocarbons in repairing the hole in the Ozone Layer. It is not a huge leap to understand that the climate will react to the effects of the industrial revolution and thereafter.

5, Far too many of the denier 'experts' are in the pocket of some aspect of the energy & industrial industries. They have the same sort of useful academics that the cigarette manufacturers funded to deny their harmful effects.

6. The renewables industry & its lobby is miniscule compared to the energy industry & its lobby (even leaving out the manufacturers)  so suggesting 'big business' is behind the climate change is a downright lie. The opposite is what's true.

 

Note: I'm always happy to see yout posts Kratiboy even when I don't agree with you.

I respectfully disagree with some of these points, although you have an argument re: ' "experts" are in the pocket of some aspect of the energy & industrial industries.'

However, the same counterargument can be made against those such as Michael Mann and the IPCC too re: immense government funding and globalist 'green energy' subsidies and legislators. I actually work for a company specialising in renewable energy, so I don't take this subject lightly and in fact have a healthy respect for the industry, even though it is not as 'green' or as 'renewable' in practice as many believe it to be. Moving away from inefficient and dirty pollutants such as fossil fuels / removing the hegemony of the petrochemical industry is something I am totally for. It is a ludicrously outdated and inefficient way of fueling our society in 2019. 

 

'It is not a huge leap to understand that the climate will react to the effects of the industrial revolution and thereafter.' - I don't disagree with you that most actions have a reaction and that in fact humankind's activities may well be having some effect on the biosphere / global metereological activity, it undoubtedly can in a more localised sense, as we have seen time and again. However, the extent to which we are responsible for global warming and cooling trends as well as erratic weather is very much up for debate, it is the absolutely frenzied hysteria surrounding this unproven claim that is now reaching fever pitch, that is simply counterproductive and verging on the ridiculous. It is not a new trope either, just as climate change isn't. It is simply being better funded and better coordinated now. Take Extinction Rebellion and their so called 'renegade activists' as a prime example of the lunacy surrounding this topic.

 

'In no previous period of history has huge volumes of CO2 & other harmful gases been spewed into the atmosphere is a century & a half period.' - true, yet the 'Medieval Warm period' (which ensued long before the industrial revolution and ended quite soon before it's advent) was responsible for larger spikes in global warming than anything we have seen since the beginning of the 19th century - that should tell us all something, how often do you hear it debated by the 'climate change' fanatics??

 

I think rather than flatly denying that there is any question WE are solely responsible for the global cooling and warming oscillations of the last century (as there have been both), people should do there own research and be aware of the long running narrative surrounding this topic - some prime examples of which I have listed above - it then becomes clear that this is far from being a cut and dry conclusion to arrive at. 

 

'“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006

 

“What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London

 

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989.

 

“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

 

[khunken]

12 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

I respectfully disagree with some of these points, although you have an argument re: ' "experts" are in the pocket of some aspect of the energy & industrial industries.'

However, the same counterargument can be made against those such as Michael Mann and the IPCC too re: immense government funding and globalist 'green energy' subsidies and legislators. I actually work for a company specialising in renewable energy, so I don't take this subject lightly and in fact have a healthy respect for the industry, even though it is not as 'green' or as 'renewable' in practice as many believe it to be. Moving away from inefficient and dirty pollutants such as fossil fuels / removing the hegemony of the petrochemical industry is something I am totally for. It is a ludicrously outdated and inefficient way of fueling our society in 2019. 

 

'It is not a huge leap to understand that the climate will react to the effects of the industrial revolution and thereafter.' - I don't disagree with you that most actions have a reaction and that in fact humankind's activities may well be having some effect on the biosphere / global metereological activity, it undoubtedly can in a more localised sense, as we have seen time and again. However, the extent to which we are responsible for global warming and cooling trends as well as erratic weather is very much up for debate, it is the absolutely frenzied hysteria surrounding this unproven claim that is now reaching fever pitch, that is simply counterproductive and verging on the ridiculous. It is not a new trope either, just as climate change isn't. It is simply being better funded and better coordinated now. Take Extinction Rebellion and their so called 'renegade activists' as a prime example of the lunacy surrounding this topic.

 

'In no previous period of history has huge volumes of CO2 & other harmful gases been spewed into the atmosphere is a century & a half period.' - true, yet the 'Medieval Warm period' (which ensued long before the industrial revolution and ended quite soon before it's advent) was responsible for larger spikes in global warming than anything we have seen since the beginning of the 19th century - that should tell us all something, how often do you hear it debated by the 'climate change' fanatics??

 

I think rather than flatly denying that there is any question WE are solely responsible for the global cooling and warming oscillations of the last century (as there have been both), people should do there own research and be aware of the long running narrative surrounding this topic - some prime examples of which I have listed above - it then becomes clear that this is far from being a cut and dry conclusion to arrive at. 

 

'“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006

 

“What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London

 

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989.

 

“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

 

Just a short response to this.

Yes there is exaggeration on both sides but overall there is far more scientific evidence that climate change is already here and needs to be tackled. Denial is definitely not good enough.

I don't believe the BS from Ball in your last paragraph. This is pure unverifiable bias from a biased person.

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, khunken said:

As a conclusion to this debate-argument, I'll just make a few points.

1. I have not researched the health effects of 5G yet - but I will but decline your offer of research material as I'd prefer to start with an open mind.

2. Al Gore, one of the few honest US politicians, has been ridiculed and vilified by the science deniers who - from a US perspective - have made out that he is the 'father' of climate change which he is not.

3. In no previous period of history has huge volumes of CO2 & other harmful gases been spewed into the atmosphere is a century & a half period.

4. I strongly believe in Newton's 'every action has an equal opposite reaction'. It has been proven time & time again with the horrendous London smog of the early 20th century, acid rain all over the world from, especially, burning coal & the ban/reduction on chlorofluorocarbons in repairing the hole in the Ozone Layer. It is not a huge leap to understand that the climate will react to the effects of the industrial revolution and thereafter.

5, Far too many of the denier 'experts' are in the pocket of some aspect of the energy & industrial industries. They have the same sort of useful academics that the cigarette manufacturers funded to deny their harmful effects.

6. The renewables industry & its lobby is miniscule compared to the energy industry & its lobby (even leaving out the manufacturers)  so suggesting 'big business' is behind the climate change is a downright lie. The opposite is what's true.

 

Note: I'm always happy to see yout posts Kratiboy even when I don't agree with you.

Appreciate these useful notes and reciprocate your friendly sentiments. Just to make clear: In reprising your remarks about big business' role in influencing governments, I was not making an oblique reference to any chicanery bty the renewables industry, but to the below-the-line activities of some of the worst current polluters of our planet. 

I appreciate you don't want my possible biased view unduly to influence your research, but on this particular aspect of the debate, I would recommend you to the excellently-researched work of Cory Morningstar, an independent journalist (and climate change BELIEVER) who can explain what is going on far better than I am able. I think you will find her, as I have, an eye-opener.

wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

27 minutes ago, khunken said:

Just a short response to this.

Yes there is exaggeration on both sides but overall there is far more scientific evidence that climate change is already here and needs to be tackled. Denial is definitely not good enough.

I don't believe the BS from Ball in your last paragraph. This is pure unverifiable bias from a biased person.

Fair enough, I would say the same of much of what Michael Mann and his team have said over the years. Ball is just as credible as he, both have their opinions.

I don't disagree with evidence that climate change is real - to say it's 'already here' is a very odd statement though. It is always here and always will be, that is the central point about it.

 

How responsible humankind and our actions are for exacerbating it has definitely not been proven beyond a doubt though. I notice you don't respond to the Medieval Warm period point too. Few on the other side of this argument ever do, for good reason. ????