Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[cyb]

A lot of posters seem to have no clue as to the global power structure and the real goals connected to global warming.

I urge everyone, whether they know AGW is a scam or not, to watch 'Fall Of The Republic'.

It's doesn't focus on only global warming but it does feature in a significant part of the documentary. The main AGW part is at about 1h 40min.

Tax, control, the transfer of wealth and power from the average man in the street to the big banking money masters.

Teetree you really scraped the barrel of youtube for that utter claptrap.

Edited October 29, 2009 by cyb

[brahmburgers]

I'm an odd sort, but I honestly care more for other flora and fauna than I do for the one species known as humans. Humans are the one species that is destroying habitat on severe levels. Whether it be partly due to 'global warming' (which I believe) or has nothing to do with G.H., is secondary. Similarly, to whatever degree GH is caused by humans, is also secondary. The stark facts are there are more 'Love Canals' and more barely habitable cities like Calcutta blighting this one planet. Bangkok falls in that category, as well as Shanghai, Mexico City, Dacca, L.A. .....the list goes on and on.

In lieu of that, it's somewhat of a relief, at least for the planet, if a lot less humans are running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes. So, if rising seas decimate large populations of people, so be it.

To me, the real debate should center on human overpopulation and what can be done to lessen it. I got my tubes tied years ago. If not, I probably would have seeded about a dozen new people in the ensuing years. Meanwhile, the Pope keeps telling his impoverished flocks living in garbage strewn slums to keep creating new Catholics as fast as they can.

An example: There are a couple types of ground dwelling birds in my area of nothern Thailand. One's called nok wok and the other is a small quail. Both have had a tough time surviving because of the influx of chickens and dogs, but they're hanging in there. Same for a larger crow-like bird that looks a bit like a pheasant. I asked my hill tribe friend why the larger bird still survives, when he and his people are always killing and eating every bird they can, and he said it survives because it eats dead things, and therefore has a bad taste.

[teatree]

I'm an odd sort, but I honestly care more for other flora and fauna than I do for the one species known as humans. Humans are the one species that is destroying habitat on severe levels. Whether it be partly due to 'global warming' (which I believe) or has nothing to do with G.H., is secondary. Similarly, to whatever degree GH is caused by humans, is also secondary. The stark facts are there are more 'Love Canals' and more barely habitable cities like Calcutta blighting this one planet. Bangkok falls in that category, as well as Shanghai, Mexico City, Dacca, L.A. .....the list goes on and on.

In lieu of that, it's somewhat of a relief, at least for the planet, if a lot less humans are running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes. So, if rising seas decimate large populations of people, so be it.

To me, the real debate should center on human overpopulation and what can be done to lessen it. I got my tubes tied years ago. If not, I probably would have seeded about a dozen new people in the ensuing years. Meanwhile, the Pope keeps telling his impoverished flocks living in garbage strewn slums to keep creating new Catholics as fast as they can.

An example: There are a couple types of ground dwelling birds in my area of nothern Thailand. One's called nok wok and the other is a small quail. Both have had a tough time surviving because of the influx of chickens and dogs, but they're hanging in there. Same for a larger crow-like bird that looks a bit like a pheasant. I asked my hill tribe friend why the larger bird still survives, when he and his people are always killing and eating every bird they can, and he said it survives because it eats dead things, and therefore has a bad taste.

Could you, and all those who share your view that humans need to die in order to save the planet please do something about it and sacrifice yourself.

When all the eugenicists are out the way the rest of us can address what causes countries in the 3rd world to become over-populated - lack of development. Once a country becomes industrialised it's population growth is negative. If it wasn't for mass immigration the population of the UK for example would be reducing.

But you are probably going to get your wish. Huge population reduction is on the agenda.

[JR Texas]

I'm an odd sort, but I honestly care more for other flora and fauna than I do for the one species known as humans. Humans are the one species that is destroying habitat on severe levels. Whether it be partly due to 'global warming' (which I believe) or has nothing to do with G.H., is secondary. Similarly, to whatever degree GH is caused by humans, is also secondary. The stark facts are there are more 'Love Canals' and more barely habitable cities like Calcutta blighting this one planet. Bangkok falls in that category, as well as Shanghai, Mexico City, Dacca, L.A. .....the list goes on and on.

In lieu of that, it's somewhat of a relief, at least for the planet, if a lot less humans are running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes. So, if rising seas decimate large populations of people, so be it.

To me, the real debate should center on human overpopulation and what can be done to lessen it. I got my tubes tied years ago. If not, I probably would have seeded about a dozen new people in the ensuing years. Meanwhile, the Pope keeps telling his impoverished flocks living in garbage strewn slums to keep creating new Catholics as fast as they can.

An example: There are a couple types of ground dwelling birds in my area of nothern Thailand. One's called nok wok and the other is a small quail. Both have had a tough time surviving because of the influx of chickens and dogs, but they're hanging in there. Same for a larger crow-like bird that looks a bit like a pheasant. I asked my hill tribe friend why the larger bird still survives, when he and his people are always killing and eating every bird they can, and he said it survives because it eats dead things, and therefore has a bad taste.

Good post Brahamburgers..........numbers of people matter, no question about it. We have exceeded carrying capacity all over the planet, especially if quality of life indicators are included in such measurements (and normally they are not).

Religion is a huge impediment to progress........I have sort of been saying that all along when talking about reason (science) vs emotion (religion/mysticism). Be fruitful and multiply was OK when we had virtually no people on the planet and simple technologies.........it is not OK in the modern world.

Unfortunately, poor and uneducated people--especially women who bear the burden of childbearing--have more children than their counterparts. That is why the UN is so focused on the MDGs and educated young girls (eventually it will pay off in reduced growth rates).

But there is a more fundamental problem: energy. One scholar, the late Leslie White (little known outside of anthropology) talked a long time ago about how important energy is to society..........almost nobody listened (I did).

I encourage people to read this: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/White.html

Basically he is stating that energy (technology) is the base of societal development......like the foundation of a house.

Now, we are using Stone Age technology as our base. It is totally inappropriate, the proof of which is all around us in the form of social and environmental degradation.

What we must do is move beyond Stone Age technology........that is how we will evolve as a species, as predicated by Leslie White 50 years ago.

The relationship is a bit complex, but a new system of energy, if appropriate is scale (it should be a decentralized system) will improve the lives of the rural poor.......especially poor women.......children will become less necessary as workers and old age insurance.

This will cause the population--the global population and especially the population in the developing world--to start declining........now only the rate of growth is declining.

And a much lower global population will mean a much higher quality of life for the masses.

So, we have another reason to move away from our current addiction to BIG OIL.

[brahmburgers]

I'm an odd sort, but I honestly care more for other flora and fauna than I do for the one species known as humans. Humans are the one species that is destroying habitat on severe levels. Whether it be partly due to 'global warming' (which I believe) or has nothing to do with G.H., is secondary. Similarly, to whatever degree GH is caused by humans, is also secondary. The stark facts are there are more 'Love Canals' and more barely habitable cities like Calcutta blighting this one planet. Bangkok falls in that category, as well as Shanghai, Mexico City, Dacca, L.A. .....the list goes on and on.

In lieu of that, it's somewhat of a relief, at least for the planet, if a lot less humans are running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes. So, if rising seas decimate large populations of people, so be it.

To me, the real debate should center on human overpopulation and what can be done to lessen it. I got my tubes tied years ago. If not, I probably would have seeded about a dozen new people in the ensuing years. Meanwhile, the Pope keeps telling his impoverished flocks living in garbage strewn slums to keep creating new Catholics as fast as they can.

An example: There are a couple types of ground dwelling birds in my area of nothern Thailand. One's called nok wok and the other is a small quail. Both have had a tough time surviving because of the influx of chickens and dogs, but they're hanging in there. Same for a larger crow-like bird that looks a bit like a pheasant. I asked my hill tribe friend why the larger bird still survives, when he and his people are always killing and eating every bird they can, and he said it survives because it eats dead things, and therefore has a bad taste.

Could you, and all those who share your view that humans need to die in order to save the planet please do something about it and sacrifice yourself.

When all the eugenicists are out the way the rest of us can address what causes countries in the 3rd world to become over-populated - lack of development. Once a country becomes industrialised it's population growth is negative. If it wasn't for mass immigration the population of the UK for example would be reducing.

But you are probably going to get your wish. Huge population reduction is on the agenda.

Industrialization leads to negative population growth. Yes, that's happened in a handful of eastern European countries, and there's been zero pop growth in Japan. Congrats to all!

But you're looking at it through the prism of economics. Most economists and government heavies lament negative population growth purely because it lessens the amount of money that goes in to coffers to provide bloated support for their elders. I say 'bloated' because most elderly in first world countries live lavishly - compared to living at a modest & comfortable level.

I may not sacrifice myself, but I will die someday. That's a promise. In the meantime, I will leave as small of a mess (carbon footprint, toxic substances) as reasonably possible in this consumer world which has toxins in nearly every product and its packaging, and the fossil fuel driven transport getting to the mall and back - or wherever you're going to spend money mindlessly like the insatiable/ravenous consumer you're been indoctrinated to become. I don't address that just to one person, but to everyone who doesn't live in a cave or on a desolate island.

Good post Brahamburgers..........numbers of people matter, no question about it. We have exceeded carrying capacity all over the planet, especially if quality of life indicators are included in such measurements (and normally they are not).

Religion is a huge impediment to progress........I have sort of been saying that all along when talking about reason (science) vs emotion (religion/mysticism). Be fruitful and multiply was OK when we had virtually no people on the planet and simple technologies.........it is not OK in the modern world.

Unfortunately, poor and uneducated people--especially women who bear the burden of childbearing--have more children than their counterparts. That is why the UN is so focused on the MDGs and educated young girls (eventually it will pay off in reduced growth rates).

Agree. Probably the one best thing people can do to improve the overall sickness of the planet is to enable girls to get educated. Educated girls/women are going to have less kids or, like my daughter, no kids at all. They're also more likely to adopt abandoned/orphaned kids - something Thais consider ridiculous.

Speaking of Thailand, one thing that would help lessen the endemic situation of fatherless kids here: enact a program to force deadbeat dads to pay for the kids they sire. If the deadbeat dad says he doesn't have enough money (which they all will say), then enact a program, like FDR's 'New Deal' that will put them to work building/fixing infrastructure. Pay them 250 baht/day (laborers' wage) and send half that amount to the moms/grandparents to help support the the abandoned kids.

If I were PM, that would be my 1st order of business.

That wouldn't be a cure-all for the serious problem of over half of Thai kids being fatherless, but it would be a 'wake up call' for men, and just might make them think a tiny bit before they stick their little banana in every sliced pineapple they can coerce with beer and sweet words.

Edited October 29, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Spee]

In lieu of that, it's somewhat of a relief, at least for the planet, if a lot less humans are running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes. So, if rising seas decimate large populations of people, so be it.

So such stalwarts of the human race as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung must be held in your very highest esteem, for they were directly responsible for decimating large populations of more than 150 MILLION of our fellow human beings.

Boy, wow, was that ever a relief !! ?? After all, that's a helluva lot more than "a lot less humans running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes."

That's quite frankly a rather disgusting perspective. You are one of those humans. As the US Supreme Court has ruled, you are a polluter because you exhale CO2. So if we're going to start making decisions on eliminating parts of the human race, would it be ok to start with you?

Obviously that wouldn't in any way be a solution from my perspective. But according to your logic, starting with you is just as good as starting with anyone else. Yes? No? If not you, then why someone else? Who are you or anyone else to play God?

Edited October 29, 2009 by Spee

[Rumfoord]

Maybe an image might help put things in proper perspective:

Awesome.

perspective is everything.

[taffylee]

Forgive me for not reading this thread from start to finish.

But the Nutty Thai professor does have a valid point, due to Thailands proximity to the equator and the tidal effects (gravitational pull) of other bodies in the solar system (except the moon). Thailand may suffer perhaps 10mm less sea levl rise compared to an equivalent 1 Meter sea level increase of Europe in the next 50 years.

So be warned!!

[JR Texas]

Forgive me for not reading this thread from start to finish.

But the Nutty Thai professor does have a valid point, due to Thailands proximity to the equator and the tidal effects (gravitational pull) of other bodies in the solar system (except the moon). Thailand may suffer perhaps 10mm less sea levl rise compared to an equivalent 1 Meter sea level increase of Europe in the next 50 years.

So be warned!!

Actually, the Thai professor is not "nutty." What he said was taken out of context. He never said the sea level would not rise under any and all conditions.

I think most posters never read what he said. He simply pointed out that the Tropical Zone might be less impacted.

The fact remains, that if both Poles melt, we are in big trouble no matter where we are located on the planet.

And, yes, the Gulf of Thailand will rise.

The risk of doing nothing is much greater than the risk of doing something about energy.

Our current energy system is Stone Age technology.

The nutty ones will say it will cost of $$$ to do something about climate change and energy.

Yes, it will. If in the form of a global research project, it will cost money to do the research. I would remind the nutty ones that it also cost money to develop the internal combustion engine.

If we followed their logic, we would never have developed that engine because it cost money.

We are paying big money now by worshiping at the alter of BIG OIL........taxes, tax breaks for BIG OIL, military security for BIG OIL, etc.

We are paying big money supporting Stone Age technology that is costing us money to fix the social, economic and environmental problems associated with it.

A new energy system will create jobs..........jobs means taxes.........taxes offset any investment needed to develop a new system of energy.

It is time to move out of the Stone Age.........it is time to evolve as a species.........energy is the key to that (as Leslie White theorized decades ago).

If you are concerned about the economy, war, ethnic violence, environmental degradation, overpopulation...........a primary solution is to focus on energy.

Any politician who is not supporting a research project to develop a new form of energy suitable for the 21st century should be thrown out of office.

You want to make a better world? Get behind this idea.

You have your own toaster........oven..........car..........computer........phone, etc. Why not have your own energy system? Think about it.

BIG OIL does not want you to think about it.

[brahmburgers]

In lieu of that, it's somewhat of a relief, at least for the planet, if a lot less humans are running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes. So, if rising seas decimate large populations of people, so be it.

So such stalwarts of the human race as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung must be held in your very highest esteem, for they were directly responsible for decimating large populations of more than 150 MILLION of our fellow human beings.

Boy, wow, was that ever a relief !! ?? After all, that's a helluva lot more than "a lot less humans running around destroying habitat and making toxic messes."

That's quite frankly a rather disgusting perspective. You are one of those humans. As the US Supreme Court has ruled, you are a polluter because you exhale CO2. So if we're going to start making decisions on eliminating parts of the human race, would it be ok to start with you? Obviously that wouldn't in any way be a solution from my perspective. But according to your logic, starting with you is just as good as starting with anyone else. Yes? No? If not you, then why someone else? Who are you or anyone else to play God?

ok, you succeeded in goading me to responding, Spee.

You make a ridiculous assumption, then you go on to cast aspersions. Sounds like some of my ex-wives in California.

BTW, if you go back several dozen posts, you'll see my reference to putting a few rats in an enclosed room, and tossing in a can of dog food each day. That, in a microcosm, is what happens with overpopulation, and it's not pretty. This is a finite planet, and humans are procreating with rat-like proficiency. Look no farther than fat American women delivering six babies at a time (from artificially inserted eggs). Or look at the Filipinos living on waste dumps popping out Catholics, one per year/per mama - if you don't believe me. With that sort of runaway pop.explosion, it's basic physics that there will be cataclysmic responses. AIDS, SARS, Malaria, heart disease, lung disease, or any combination of the hundreds of diseases that afflict humans are just one aspect of the mitigating results of runaway overpopulation. Warfare and other ways that humans kill humans, are other results - just like rats multiplying in a confined space with finite resources will kill and eat one another.

Do yourself a favor, Spee, and read a good history of Easter Island (finite space overpopulated by humans). Ok, you won't do that, so I'll tell you the ending: forests cut down, surrounding seas overfished, all the while people popping out babies. A while later, fierce fighting day and night, then cannibalism. The few stragglers that the white men found, when they first arrived, were the lucky ones who hid away in caves.

Spee, don't get your knickers in a twist about me sacrificing myself. I'll die soon enough. However, I want to stay around a bit longer to witness some of the hundreds of trees I've planted grow. Hope you don't mind.

Edited October 30, 2009 by brahmburgers

[teatree]

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...supporting.html

[JR Texas]

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...supporting.html

A casual examination of the articles reveals many are in the "prestigious" journal Energy And Environment:

This is a quote from Sourcewatch:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, and Indur Goklany.

And that took me ten seconds..........I am sure if I went through all of it, I would find more of the same. More misleading BS from you.

[BusyBee123]

just stop breeding and cutting down trees, much simpler and less little shits ruining my plane journeys

[brahmburgers]

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...supporting.html

A casual examination of the articles reveals many are in the "prestigious" journal Energy And Environment:

This is a quote from Sourcewatch:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, and Indur Goklany.

And that took me ten seconds..........I am sure if I went through all of it, I would find more of the same. More misleading BS from you.

I too looked at the very long list of supposedly ''peer-reviewed' scientific findings/papers from the URL Teatree offered. It's a bit spooky in a way.

Even if a relatively small % of scientists/specialists don't want a particular concept believed by the public (in this case, the idea that global warming is affected by human activity), then that's an effective way to counter the trend.

In other words, if I wanted to launch a campaign to try to convince a lot of people that asphalt ground cover is better than lawns, here's how I would go about doing it:

I'd search for anyone who's written a paper espousing the benefits of asphalt or its cousins (chip 'n seal, tarred roads, etc). I would probably also encourage (maybe even pay) people with initials after their names to write papers which sing praises of asphalt ground cover. I would do the same with whomever I could find who happened to frown upon grass lawns. Then I would list as many of them as possible in a spiffy looking web page, using odd little notations that customarily accompany peer-reviewed 'findings' - in order to give the whole shaboogle the appearance of scholarship and objectivity.

It wouldn't hurt to get as many 'press releases' out as possible - espousing my beliefs.

Back to the global warming debate or, more specifically, the assertion that the Gulf of Thailand won't rise significantly if sea levels rise in other parts of the world: It gets tougher for the average concerned person to assess what's real science and what's pseudo science. Personally, I like Discover magazine, and incidentally, their latest issue has several well written articles which relate to global warming.

[teatree]

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...supporting.html

A casual examination of the articles reveals many are in the "prestigious" journal Energy And Environment:

This is a quote from Sourcewatch:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, and Indur Goklany.

And that took me ten seconds..........I am sure if I went through all of it, I would find more of the same. More misleading BS from you.

SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) is an internet site that is a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceWatch

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a progressive nonprofit American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy

Had a look at 'sourcewatch' and found an extraordinary bias in favour of the man made global warming theorists.

[teatree]

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...supporting.html

A casual examination of the articles reveals many are in the "prestigious" journal Energy And Environment:

This is a quote from Sourcewatch:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, and Indur Goklany.

And that took me ten seconds..........I am sure if I went through all of it, I would find more of the same. More misleading BS from you.

I too looked at the very long list of supposedly ''peer-reviewed' scientific findings/papers from the URL Teatree offered. It's a bit spooky in a way.

Even if a relatively small % of scientists/specialists don't want a particular concept believed by the public (in this case, the idea that global warming is affected by human activity), then that's an effective way to counter the trend.

In other words, if I wanted to launch a campaign to try to convince a lot of people that asphalt ground cover is better than lawns, here's how I would go about doing it:

I'd search for anyone who's written a paper espousing the benefits of asphalt or its cousins (chip 'n seal, tarred roads, etc). I would probably also encourage (maybe even pay) people with initials after their names to write papers which sing praises of asphalt ground cover. I would do the same with whomever I could find who happened to frown upon grass lawns. Then I would list as many of them as possible in a spiffy looking web page, using odd little notations that customarily accompany peer-reviewed 'findings' - in order to give the whole shaboogle the appearance of scholarship and objectivity.

It wouldn't hurt to get as many 'press releases' out as possible - espousing my beliefs.

Back to the global warming debate or, more specifically, the assertion that the Gulf of Thailand won't rise significantly if sea levels rise in other parts of the world: It gets tougher for the average concerned person to assess what's real science and what's pseudo science. Personally, I like Discover magazine, and incidentally, their latest issue has several well written articles which relate to global warming.

And exactly the same allegations can be aimed at man made global warming believers and their tactics - except that they have the financial backing of the federal government.

In fact the methods you mentioned sound very similar to the way Mann of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph operates.

Edited October 30, 2009 by teatree

[nisakiman]

Maybe an image might help put things in proper perspective:

Awesome.

perspective is everything.

JR, you seem to be somewhat fixated on this (capitalised) BIG OIL thing. Haven't you read that they are all scrambling for the next generation technology because they know that oil supplies are finite?

And can't you see that the whole AGW scam is all about creating BIG GOVERNMENT? If you think BIG OIL is scary, you ain't seen nothing yet..

Take a step back, mate. Look at the whole scenario objectively, rather than swallowing hook, line and sinker every bit of alarmist propoganda that you are being fed by the global warming, sorry, climate change industry. Can't you see a pattern?

[JR Texas]

JR, you seem to be somewhat fixated on this (capitalised) BIG OIL thing. Haven't you read that they are all scrambling for the next generation technology because they know that oil supplies are finite?

And can't you see that the whole AGW scam is all about creating BIG GOVERNMENT? If you think BIG OIL is scary, you ain't seen nothing yet..

Take a step back, mate. Look at the whole scenario objectively, rather than swallowing hook, line and sinker every bit of alarmist propoganda that you are being fed by the global warming, sorry, climate change industry. Can't you see a pattern?

BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT already exist. In fact, they often work together. If you can't see that, you can't see.

I am talking about real science. I am talking about new possibilities that will emancipate us from both BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT. That is what you are not grasping.

Of course BIG OIL wants to dominate the energy scene forever.......one way is to buy up new patents on next generation technologies. Another way is to pay pseudo-scientists to post crap on the internet.

That is why people need to educate themselves and demand a system that is decentralized.........something BIG OIL can't control.

What surprises me most about your side is that you believe exactly what BIG OIL wants you to believe.

And you ignore real science......dismissing it all as a huge conspiracy to create something that already exists (i.e., BIG GOVERNMENT).

The good news is that your side lost the debate...........real scientists and responsible governments are focusing on solutions now.

If you want to emancipate the global population from BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT, you will start focusing on developing a new system of energy that is appropriate for the 21st century and stop supporting Stone Age technology.

[Rumfoord]

BIG LEADING GLOBAL WARMING OPINIONISTAS (FB), BLGWO fanbois, , the self declared natural enemy of treadmills, windmills, BIG Root Of All Good (aka cash) found out that THEY can do heat up the neptune too. yes, they can! you just have to believe it or not.

[JR Texas]

BIG LEADING GLOBAL WARMING OPINIONISTAS (FB), BLGWO fanbois, , the self declared natural enemy of treadmills, windmills, BIG Root Of All Good (aka cash) found out that THEY can do heat up the neptune too. yes, they can! you just have to believe it or not.

Please get that published in a peer review journal........critical finding.

If you can figure out how to teach a rock to turn over, please let me know.....that might be the solution.

[SanSaiExPat]

Article in the Nation

Quote

Gulf sea level 'unlikely to rise'

Global warming will not cause sea levels to rise in the Gulf of Thailand, a leading hydrologist says.

Sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand are, in fact, falling slightly, Dr Suphat Vongvisessomjai said. Forecasts by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming would cause sea levels to rise had been misapplied to the Gulf of Thailand, he said, urging the public not to panic.

The phenomenon will vary according to latitude, explained Suphat, a former professor at the Asian Institute of Technology's water resources engineering and management programme.

Global warming will cause significant rises in sea level in areas in the high and middle latitudes only, he said. These areas will be affected by melting glaciers and ice sheets, while areas close to the Equator will not, he explained.

"The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand. We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets [for sea levels to rise]," Suphat said.

He cited data from the Navy's hydrographic department that showed average sea levels at Koh Lak in Prachuap Khiri Khan and Sattahip in Chon Buri were 0.6 centimetres and 0.3 centimetres lower, respectively, over the past 8.6 years than the 25-year average between 1963 and 1987.

He also cited research from a Japanese team. In 1993 researchers Tetsuo Yanagi and Tatsuya Akaki found that sea levels at southern locations in the Sea of Japan, the Korean Peninsula, Indochina and Malaysia had been falling for 40 years, he said.

Suphat said the sea level in the Andaman Sea might also be falling because it occupied the same latitudes as the Gulf of Thailand.

Suphat, now a water and environment expert at Team Consulting Engineering, said the land subsidence reported in many coastal areas of the gulf was the consequence of human activity, including over-consumption of ground water.

Erosion plays a crucial role in land emergence and subsidence, he said.

Although climate change would not cause sea levels to rise in the Gulf of Thailand, Suphat warned against ignoring concerns about the impact of rising global temperatures.

Careful analysis rather than panic is in order, he said.

"The climate change panel did not deceive us or exaggerate. Its scientific findings are just based on the environment of their scientists, most of whom live in Europe," he said.

Since 2001 the panel has been reporting global sea levels will rise between 11 and 28 centimetres by 2100, and that the rate is accelerating. The panel was set up in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme.

Pennapa Hongthong

The Nation

unquote

A bit more science in this article. Are there any experts in regional geology, plate tectonics and subsidence rates who wish to comment?

Pennapa, Excellent rebuttal to the liberal European idiots who in an obvious "knee jerk" reaction to the original article fired both their guns in derision at Dr Suphat Vongvisessomjai. You might also add that the whole concept of "Global Warming" or what they now call "Climate Change" (Wonder why they decided to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change? When I was a kid in the 1950's they told us the sun was cooling and the climate was cooling and we were all going to freeze to death.) is a fantasy in and of itself. Climate Change is an attempt to redistribute the wealth of developed western nations to devloping and third world nations.

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-hoax-of-the-century/

[Rumfoord]

A complete list of things caused by global warming:

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer better, beer shortage, beer worse, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds face longer migrations, birds return early, birds shrink, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, British monsoon, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, carbon crimes, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, coffee berry borer, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, http://mailgate.supereva.com/sci/sci.bio.e...y/msg05065.htmlcost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, deadly virus outbreaks, death rate increase (US), deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, dig sites threatened, disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move north, dog disease, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases - or not, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth axis tilt, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fires fanned in Nepal, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish head north, fish shrinking, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flies on Everest, flood patterns change, floods,  floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, flora dispersed, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration,  footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, gravity shift, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed,health risks, heart disease, , heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insect invasion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, large trees decline, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lawyers want more, legionnaires' surge, lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains taller, mortality lower,  Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National Parks damaged, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters  quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying,  oaks move north,  ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead spots, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, Olympic Games to end, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, penguin chicks smaller, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, pines decline, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf, polar bears drowning, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, rabid bats, radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, seismic activity, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking sheep, shrinking shrine, Sidney Opera House wiped out, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall decrease, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snow thicker,  soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders getting bigger, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid larger, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stick insects, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, terrorists (India), threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, toxic seaweed, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, tundra plant life boost, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, violin decline, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out,  West Nile fever, whale beachings, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, winds stronger, winds weaker, wine - Australian baked, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine - England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French,  wine passé (Napa), wine - Scotland best, wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever

credits for the list goes to:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

check there for updates

[nisakiman]

A complete list of things caused by global warming:

credits for the list goes to:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

check there for updates

Yes, numberwatch is a great site - shoots down a lot of modern myths.

Have you looked at the full list of things that cause cancer? It's on a par with the one you just posted.

People are so gullible...........

Edited October 31, 2009 by nisakiman

[JR Texas]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

[rakman]

JR, you seem to be somewhat fixated on this (capitalised) BIG OIL thing. Haven't you read that they are all scrambling for the next generation technology because they know that oil supplies are finite?

And can't you see that the whole AGW scam is all about creating BIG GOVERNMENT? If you think BIG OIL is scary, you ain't seen nothing yet..

Take a step back, mate. Look at the whole scenario objectively, rather than swallowing hook, line and sinker every bit of alarmist propoganda that you are being fed by the global warming, sorry, climate change industry. Can't you see a pattern?

BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT already exist. In fact, they often work together. If you can't see that, you can't see.

I am talking about real science. I am talking about new possibilities that will emancipate us from both BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT. That is what you are not grasping.

Of course BIG OIL wants to dominate the energy scene forever.......one way is to buy up new patents on next generation technologies. Another way is to pay pseudo-scientists to post crap on the internet.

That is why people need to educate themselves and demand a system that is decentralized.........something BIG OIL can't control.

What surprises me most about your side is that you believe exactly what BIG OIL wants you to believe.

And you ignore real science......dismissing it all as a huge conspiracy to create something that already exists (i.e., BIG GOVERNMENT).

The good news is that your side lost the debate...........real scientists and responsible governments are focusing on solutions now.

If you want to emancipate the global population from BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT, you will start focusing on developing a new system of energy that is appropriate for the 21st century and stop supporting Stone Age technology.

The only alarmist propaganda is the new religion of AGW. We are not gods, CO2 is a plant fertilizer. Oil is stored sunshine from plant material of ages ago.

What cost effective, sustainable, reliable, magic power generation are you talking about? There isn't any mature, reliable, cost effective alternative power generation system available. Maybe in a few decades, but not right now. There are many light weight unproven experiments out there, only time will tell how effective, reliable and cost effective they really are.

From Eon: http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2006/8/prweb420633.htm

E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur. The report was sponsored by the German government and all sides of the industry. Among bombshells contained inside, the study suggests that while wind power capacity will reach 48 GW by 2020 in Germany, the source is so intermittent and unreliable that it is equivalent to only 2 GW of stable fossil fuel capacity.

Hardly the stuff of reliable and economical.

[rakman]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

In true science, the "debate" is never over. Try http://www.co2science.org and http://www.junkscience.com for differing views.

The IPCC report is wrong, they ignore the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. The computer models don't fit reality. The claim by NASA that 1998 was the warmest year on record is incorrect, but keeps being claimed. 1934 was the hottest year on record.

The only thing worse than corrupt science is corrupt governments.

Find a new religion to believe in.

[JR Texas]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

In true science, the "debate" is never over. Try http://www.co2science.org and http://www.junkscience.com for differing views.

The IPCC report is wrong, they ignore the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. The computer models don't fit reality. The claim by NASA that 1998 was the warmest year on record is incorrect, but keeps being claimed. 1934 was the hottest year on record.

The only thing worse than corrupt science is corrupt governments.

Find a new religion to believe in.

A debate (among responsible scientists) took place..........a consensus formed........action is now being taken.

Your side lost. Get over it and start focusing on solutions.

You never achieve 100% agreement in science.........we know that already.

Models, especially models of something as complex as climate, will likely never be 100% predictive.

Of course odd things will surface (again, scientists know this and predict it).

Now we have both corrupt BIG OIL and corrupt BIG GOVERNMENT.

We are using outdated, Stone Age technology. It is time to evolve and take action on energy and produce a decentralized, inexpensive system.

One more thing that you don't seem to grasp: The temperature at a particular year tells us nothing about climate change..........scientists look at long term trends.

The long term trend is warming (at least over the past 100 years). It is tracking CO2 trends..........and population trends.

Your side is not debating. It is simply taking posts written by BIG OIL paid knowledge assassins and trying to use them to create doubt. That ploy will not work.

A similar attempt to generate doubt on a scientific consensus was made to convince the public cigarettes don't cause cancer........fortunately, the crackpots lost that debate too.

[teatree]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

What??? The whole global warming propaganda is being used to help force in BIG GOVERNMENT. Have a look at the proposals and 'solutions' being offered. They all about expanding the power of government and very little to do with researching new energy alternatives. How can you not see this? Are you implying that BIG GOVERNMENT are AGW skeptics? You're not making any sense.

Lord Monckton warns about global government via global warming treaty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it589JiPs8o...feature=related

ps before you rush into an ad hominem attack, try to address what he is warning about.

Edited November 1, 2009 by teatree

[JR Texas]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

What??? The whole global warming propaganda is being used to help force in BIG GOVERNMENT. Have a look at the proposals and 'solutions' being offered. They all about expanding the power of government and very little to do with researching new energy alternatives. How can you not see this? Are you implying that BIG GOVERNMENT are AGW skeptics? You're not making any sense.

Lord Monckton warns about global government via global warming treaty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it589JiPs8o...feature=related

ps before you rush into an ad hominem attack, try to address what he is warning about.

That is the most funny post yet Teabag. You actually are not aware that BIG GOVERNMENT has existed for along time now.

Or you can't admit to it. Why? Because if you acknowledge it as a fact, your conspiracy theory to usher in big government explodes.

In a crime, you look for motive. What motive is there for responsible scientists to address climate change?

It certainly is not big money..........BIG OIL has more money to pay scientists to post nonsense on the web. Apparently you don't know what responsible professors and government workers earn (far less than BIG OIL is capable of paying them).

If responsible scientists wanted big money, they would switch to the Dark Side.

It certainly is not to usher in BIG GOVERNMENT because BIG GOVERNMENT already exists.

Here is a thought: Scientists (and responsible politicians) are concerned that climate change is going to exacerbate all of our existing social, economic and environmental problems.

Now.........ask yourself what motive does BIG OIL have for trying to convince you that the science behind climate change is nothing but a grand conspiracy to usher in BIG GOVERNMENT and that an actual debate is taking place?

Here is the answer: They want to maintain the status quo because it gives them massive power and wealth.

Which scenario is more likely?

[brahmburgers]

Speaking of scenarios, what happens if, next time Wall Street sags like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, Uncle Sam just lets it collapse ...let the chips fall as they may.

Ok, off topic, sorry. BTW, JR Texas is doing a valiant job of upholding reason in this thread. He's up against a couple gnarly contrarians who seem to have done their finishing school at a pit bull arena. Hang in there JR, I'd add some more text, but I think this topic should be shuttered. It started out discussing the Thai 'expert's; odd claim that water doesn't rise evenly, then devolved to winking chipmunks and stacking boxes of pseudo experts like a Toys R Us inventory in the first week of December. The boxes are full of air and ready to tumble, and so should this topic.