Bangkok morning turns to night - it's climate change as top Thai scientist warns of more "extreme weather"

[ozimoron]

Bangkok is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels.

 

Even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the Greenland ice sheet is set to lose at least 3.3% of its mass, or 110 trillion tons of ice, and that will cause almost a foot in global sea-level rise (SLR), says the study, published in Nature Climate Change.

 

By mid-century, 150 million people worldwide could be displaced from their homes just by rising sea levels, according to some estimates.

 

Things are all but guaranteed to get worse if humanity continues to burn fossil fuels.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/melting-of-greenland-ice-sheet-poised-to-trigger-almost-a-foot-of-sea-level-rise-study/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From mid-July:

 

'Apocalypse': Hundreds dead as extreme heat wave broils Europe; UK could break record

"An extreme heat wave that meteorologists call an "apocalypse" broiled much of Europe and the United Kingdom on Monday, and hundreds of people died because of record high temperatures and ferocious wildfires.

 

At least 748 heat-related deaths have been reported in the heat wave in Spain and neighboring Portugal, where temperatures reached 117 degrees this month.

...

“Climate change is driving this heat wave, just as it is driving every heat wave now," said Friederike Otto, a scientist at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College in  London."

 

(more)

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/07/18/extreme-heat-wave-europe-uk/10087274002/

 

[Bday Prang]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Because 97% think their science is junk and doesn't pass peer review. If it did the 97% would agree with them.

However they are considered experts. They must be on to something  or they would be classed as "deniers," the current  dismissive adjective used by people like your self against others with whose views you disagree ,  So why are they silenced ?   

As I said in the post you partially  quoted        I just don't care.  Those who wish to, can run around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives, it is a waste of time and it won't change a thing   I personally intend to enjoy what time I have left , 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

However they are considered experts. They must be on to something  or they would be classed as "deniers," the current  dismissive adjective used by people like your self against others with whose views you disagree ,  So why are they silenced ?   

As I said in the post you partially  quoted        I just don't care.  Those who wish to, can run around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives, it is a waste of time and it won't change a thing   I personally intend to enjoy what time I have left , 

"I just don't care.  Those who wish to, can run around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives, it is a waste of time and it won't change a thing   I personally intend to enjoy what time I have left"

 

Who are these people that are running around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives? The ones that don't agree with you and your don't care attitude?

 

Try posting without inflammatory remarks

[Bday Prang]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"I just don't care.  Those who wish to, can run around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives, it is a waste of time and it won't change a thing   I personally intend to enjoy what time I have left"

 

Who are these people that are running around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives? The ones that don't agree with you and your don't care attitude?

 

Try posting without inflammatory remarks

yes exactly those people, the ones who don't agree with me and my don't care attitude

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

However they are considered experts. They must be on to something  or they would be classed as "deniers," the current  dismissive adjective used by people like your self against others with whose views you disagree ,  So why are they silenced ?   

As I said in the post you partially  quoted        I just don't care.  Those who wish to, can run around like chicken little for the rest of their miserable lives, it is a waste of time and it won't change a thing   I personally intend to enjoy what time I have left , 

They aren't. They include people like Lord Monckton and Bjorn Lomberg, international laughing stocks.

 

I don't have much time left either and I intend to enjoy it as well but I don't for the life of me understand how that means ignoring climate change. Climate "deniers" are like flat earthers, hence the dismissive adjective. Climate deniers are not to be taken seriously. They are science deniers and the gullible useful idiots of the fossil fuel industry..

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Climate "deniers" are like flat earthers, hence the dismissive adjective. Climate deniers are not to be taken seriously. They are science deniers and the gullible useful idiots of the fossil fuel industry..

 

The causes of science denial and how to combat it

11 Dec 2021

 

...

...the story of science denial starts in the 1950s with the tobacco industry’s campaign to obfuscate the causal link between smoking and cancer. One executive was quoted saying “doubt is our product” and that approach has become a blueprint for science denial, including climate change scepticism, ever since.

 

McIntyre cites a 2018 US poll in which only 29% of respondents believed that climate change is anthropomorphic. He contrasts this with an account of a trip to the Maldives, where the effects of climate change are already clear to see. “Flat-Earthers may have seemed harmless but this kind of science denial could kill us,” he says."

 

(more)

 

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-causes-of-science-denial-and-how-to-combat-it/

 

[Bday Prang]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They aren't. They include people like Lord Monckton and Bjorn Lomberg, international laughing stocks.

 

I don't have much time left either and I intend to enjoy it as well but I don't for the life of me understand how that means ignoring climate change. Climate "deniers" are like flat earthers, hence the dismissive adjective. Climate deniers are not to be taken seriously. They are science deniers and the gullible useful idiots of the fossil fuel industry..

so somebody who is considered an expert , presumably by their peers . can also be considered as an "international laughing stock"  when their views contradict the "narrative"  Very interesting.  

[The Hammer2021]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And on that point:

40°C heatwave may have killed 1000 people in England and Wales

First estimate of extreme heat's impact suggests that more than half of the deaths are expected to have been in people aged 85 and older

 

"About a thousand extra people are estimated to have died during the recent three-day UK heatwave, in the first snap analysis of the human toll of record-breaking temperatures.

 

At least 10 people drowned during the heat, which passed the milestone of 40°C in some areas, but a provisional number has now been put on the wider number of deaths linked to the extreme weather.

 

Antonio Gasparrini at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine estimates that 948 people died in England and Wales because of the sweltering conditions between 17 and 19 July."

 

(more)

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2331349-40c-heatwave-may-have-killed-1000-people-in-england-and-wales/

 

New Scientist

PRO-SCIENCE

Overall, we rate New Scientist Pro-Science and Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-scientist/

 

40°C heatwave may have killed

"May"..but cites drowning as a cause!

But this winter due to lack of energy resources thousands are likely to  die...

Edited August 30, 2022 by The Hammer2021

[onthedarkside]

A post with off-topic, unsourced and unsubstantiated claims has been removed, along with two ensuing replies.

 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

so somebody who is considered an expert , presumably by their peers . can also be considered as an "international laughing stock"  when their views contradict the "narrative"  Very interesting.  

Their work is not peer reviewed or heavily criticised (without rebuttal) by the other 97%. That's the point.

 

Very occasionally a contrarian paper does appear in a peer-reviewed journal, which segments of the internet and the media immediately hail as evidence against global warming or its human causes, as if a single paper somehow nullifies thousands of previous scientific findings.

 

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552

Edited August 30, 2022 by ozimoron

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, The Hammer2021 said:

But this winter due to lack of energy resources thousands are likely to  die...

 

Though that too, should it occur in the future, would also be from a man-made cause -- the war in Ukraine and the resulting disruptions to normal energy supplies.

 

Climate change and global warning isn't the only kind of man-made cause of death, destruction and deprivation.

 

[allanos]

3 hours ago, KhonKaenLive said:

 

Plenty of examples of adaption. Air conditioning for one. Central heating. So many. Dikes. Come on. There's much more we can do. 

 

Please read the books Fossil Future or False Alarm. 

 

It's not time to panic. Leaders who are panicked make poor decisions. 

Both excellent books which will be ignored by leaderships with their own agendas iro climate change. Should be required reading at high school and above, to get a balanced picture, rather than the hocus pocus brainwashing by governments and the MSM.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, allanos said:

Both excellent books which will be ignored by leaderships with their own agendas iro climate change. Should be required reading at high school and above, to get a balanced picture, rather than the hocus pocus brainwashing by governments and the MSM.

 Re Fossil Future and its author Alex Epstein:

 

"... he pals around with conspiracy theorists like Lauren Boebert, Dennis Prager, Scott Adams, and Candace Owens. By the way, as much as Epstein respects the Koch brothers, his ideology would never be influenced by their dark money network, even though he’s worked for decades at multiple institutions financially supported by the oil and policy magnates. Plus, he wants to debate opponents in good faith and is opposed to “ad hominem” attacks, which is why he refers to climate-concerned politicians as “fascists” and “monsters” while mobilizing his supporters to demand the termination of journalists who perform factual analyses of his oeuvre."

 

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/alex-epstein-fossil-future-climate-change-argument.html

 

 

 

[The Hammer2021]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Though that too, should it occur in the future, would also be from a man-made cause -- the war in Ukraine and the resulting disruptions to normal energy supplies.

 

Climate change and global warning isn't the only kind of man-made cause of death, destruction and deprivation.

 

If you regard human kind as inherently bad and the earth as good - Gaia theory like many eco extremists who also don't  know they are following Malthusian theory.

 

Paris COP21, the climate-sceptic Schiller Institute argues: “The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in … Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.”

[The Hammer2021]

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 Re Fossil Future and its author Alex Epstein:

 

"... he pals around with conspiracy theorists like Lauren Boebert, Dennis Prager, Scott Adams, and Candace Owens. By the way, as much as Epstein respects the Koch brothers, his ideology would never be influenced by their dark money network, even though he’s worked for decades at multiple institutions financially supported by the oil and policy magnates. Plus, he wants to debate opponents in good faith and is opposed to “ad hominem” attacks, which is why he refers to climate-concerned politicians as “fascists” and “monsters” while mobilizing his supporters to demand the termination of journalists who perform factual analyses of his oeuvre."

 

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/alex-epstein-fossil-future-climate-change-argument.html

 

 

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/30/the-green-roots-of-the-energy-crisis/

Epstein in an interview

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, The Hammer2021 said:

If you regard human kind as inherently bad and the earth as good - Gaia theory like many eco extremists who also don't  know they are following Malthusian theory.

 

Paris COP21, the climate-sceptic Schiller Institute argues: “The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in … Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.”

 

Your comment above presumes some position on my part that is an incorrect presumption.

 

And the rest of what you're on about, I have no idea, and suspect it has little relevance to the quote of mine you're responding to.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, The Hammer2021 said:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/30/the-green-roots-of-the-energy-crisis/

Epstein in an interview

Spiked Magazine

"Overall, we rate Spiked Magazine Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that mostly favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and publishing misleading scientific information."

 

... Funding has come from the Charles Koch Foundation.

 

They have also published misleading information such as this: Global warming: the 97% fallacy."

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/

 

[onthedarkside]

Another post with unsourced and unsubstantiated claims has been removed.

 

[allanos]

27 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 Re Fossil Future and its author Alex Epstein:

 

"... he pals around with conspiracy theorists like Lauren Boebert, Dennis Prager, Scott Adams, and Candace Owens. By the way, as much as Epstein respects the Koch brothers, his ideology would never be influenced by their dark money network, even though he’s worked for decades at multiple institutions financially supported by the oil and policy magnates. Plus, he wants to debate opponents in good faith and is opposed to “ad hominem” attacks, which is why he refers to climate-concerned politicians as “fascists” and “monsters” while mobilizing his supporters to demand the termination of journalists who perform factual analyses of his oeuvre."

 

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/alex-epstein-fossil-future-climate-change-argument.html

 

 

 

I find it fascinating that, rather than reading the books mentioned, for a degree of balance in the whole question of climate change, as I mentioned, or doing your own research, you attempt to bolster your own position by posting a link to a critique from "Spiked" about the author as though that settles the question without further argument.

 

You must surely realise that this gives you no credibility whatsoever?

 

It is akin to the "climate protesters" and their ilk who mindlessly swallow what they are fed by their governments and the MSM, without further pause, consideration or critical thinking.

Edited August 30, 2022 by allanos
typo

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It really is a flat earth debate.

 

 

If you absolutely insist that the earth is flat, then I won't try to convince you with logic.

[The Hammer2021]

33 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Your comment above presumes some position on my part that is an incorrect presumption.

 

And the rest of what you're on about, I have no idea, and suspect it has little relevance to the quote of mine you're responding to.

 

Well don't respond  to me!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

27 minutes ago, allanos said:

I find it fascinating that, rather than reading the books mentioned, for a degree of balance in the whole question of climate change, as I mentioned, or doing your own research, you attempt to bolster your own position by posting a link to a critique from "Spiked" about the author as though that settles the question without further argument.

 

I don't need to read the guy's whole book to understand...based on some background checking...that...

 

--he's not an academic climate scientist

--he's not an impartial, objective observer guided by research findings

--he is a political hack with ties to right-wing extremist and oil industry promoters.

 

That's more than enough for me to disregard his opinions on the scientific subject at hand.

 

Regarding his past testimony at a congressional hearing:

 

"Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans." When questioned by committee member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as to why Epstein, whose academic training is in philosophy, was even there, Epstein responded, "to teach you how to think clearly." Boxer replied "... you are a philosopher, not a scientist, and I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a philosopher about science."^[18][19]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer)#Center_for_Industrial_Progress

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[The Hammer2021]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Spiked Magazine

"Overall, we rate Spiked Magazine Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that mostly favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and publishing misleading scientific information."

 

... Funding has come from the Charles Koch Foundation.

 

They have also published misleading information such as this: Global warming: the 97% fallacy."

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/

 

You pre presume 'right bias' is both bad and measurable.

The very idea that 'right' is presumed to be pejorative indicates bias. Given the extremist liberal  bias of the Guardian et al and The BBC any view that does  not conform to their world  view will be dismissed.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

You pre presume 'right bias' is both bad and measurable.

The very idea that 'right' is presumed to be pejorative indicates bias. Given the extremist liberal  bias of the Guardian et al and The BBC any view that does  not conform to their world  view will be dismissed.

Most people who vote are 'right' certainly not communist or socialist

 

The point of my prior post and its quoted content was to point out your source's history of publishing misinformation relating to science and global warming.

 

The right-wing political part just came along for the ride in the quote at hand.  Although, the two different elements -- climate misinformation and right-wing politics -- do seem to often share the same bed.

 

[onthedarkside]

Another post with unsourced and unsubstantiated claims, and an unsourced photograph, has been removed.

[The Hammer2021]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The point of my prior post was to point out your source's history of publishing misinformation relating to science and global warming.

 

The right-wing political part just came along for the ride in the quote at hand.  Although, the two different elements -- climate misinformation and right-wing politics -- do seem to often share the same bed.

 

 

Spiked is libertarian contrarian as I am. You are trapped in solipsism- those who oppose you or Climate legislation  are 'right wing' and 'right' is unethical,  is wrong.

But that is as silly as the  performative activism of the pantomime character of Extinction Rebellion.

Incidentally your position is supported by the Morning Star and SWP magazine and The Guardian. I bet your climate scientist are supported them too.

Edited August 30, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced and unsubstantiated claims removed

[allanos]

19 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I don't need to read the guy's whole book to understand...based on some background checking...that...

 

--he's not an academic climate scientist

--he's not an impartial, objective observer guided by research findings

--he is a political hack with ties to right-wing extremist promoters.

 

That's more than enough for me to disregard his opinions on the scientific subject at hand.

 

Regarding his past testimony at a congressional hearing:

 

"Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans." When questioned by committee member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as to why Epstein, whose academic training is in philosophy, was even there, Epstein responded, "to teach you how to think clearly." Boxer replied "... you are a philosopher, not a scientist, and I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a philosopher about science."^[18][19]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer)#Center_for_Industrial_Progress

 

 

Do you not see the irony in your response? Boxer is neither a philosopher nor a scientist. She is/ was a professional politician - ranked higher than an attorney perhaps but less-so than a used-car salesman! She was already in her dotage at the time of the hearing.

 

Possibly you should rely less on Wikipedia for your submissions, and advance your own, reasoned response. If you only read a PART of one of the books, you might rethink your die-hard views.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

20 minutes ago, allanos said:

Do you not see the irony in your response? Boxer is neither a philosopher nor a scientist.

 

Contrary to your suggestion, I don't rely on Barbara Boxer or any other politicians to inform my views on global climate warming, nor on political idealogue, non-scientist authors like Epstein. (Though her quote did nicely point out that he too has absolutely no scientific qualifications in the climate science field.)

 

But I DO listen to the overwhelming majority of professional climate scientists and researchers who, as prior posts in this thread well illustrate, tell us man-made global warming is real and headed toward getting worse in the years ahead.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[The Hammer2021]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 Re Fossil Future and its author Alex Epstein:

 

"... he pals around with conspiracy theorists like Lauren Boebert, Dennis Prager, Scott Adams, and Candace Owens. By the way, as much as Epstein respects the Koch brothers, his ideology would never be influenced by their dark money network, even though he’s worked for decades at multiple institutions financially supported by the oil and policy magnates. Plus, he wants to debate opponents in good faith and is opposed to “ad hominem” attacks, which is why he refers to climate-concerned politicians as “fascists” and “monsters” while mobilizing his supporters to demand the termination of journalists who perform factual analyses of his oeuvre."

 

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/alex-epstein-fossil-future-climate-change-argument.html

 

 

 

'He pals around'

has a pejorative  subtext...