3 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

You can't fly without fossil fuels.

Best to make statements that aren't completely obvious to everyone here. Of course as I mentioned they have done a lot of good, but eventually might bring about man's extinction unless better, cleaner, less damaging methods are used more.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

Best to make statements that aren't completely obvious to everyone here. Of course as I mentioned they have done a lot of good, but eventually might bring about man's extinction unless better, cleaner, less damaging methods are used more.

Mankind was crap pre 1880. Lived to 35yo and had no decent knowledge to survive against disease. Modern cars are clean.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Humans lived to 35yo pre 1880 before cars. Fossil fuels led to cars,planes, vitamins and penicillin.

No, infant mortality was lower, which brought down the average. Many lived into their 60's and 70's and more. Again, everyone here knows what fossil fuels have done. Synthetic vitamins are created using fossil fuels, but natural ones are best, which also means you are following a better diet and supplementations aren't necessary besides those with a deficiency.

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Mankind was crap pre 1880. Lived to 35yo and had no decent knowledge to survive against disease. Modern cars are clean.

All vehicles that use gas are contributing to pollution. Less fuel is wasted than in the beginning for power but it's still into the air.Penicillin wasn't created using fossil fuels. It's from a fungus. Mass quantities are produced using fossil fuels.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

All vehicles that use gas are contributing to pollution. Less fuel is wasted than in the beginning for power but it's still into the air.

Stop using them then if concerned.

Just now, khaosokman said:

Stop using them then if concerned.

Read what people say before commenting. This isn't grammar school class. Everyone here uses fossil fuels, as well as most alive. Reducing them is what's necessary as they cause pollution and contribute to earth's warming.

The development of penicillin as a widely available, life-saving medicine was heavily dependent on technologies and resources derived from fossil fuels. While Alexander Fleming discovered the mold's antibiotic properties in 1928, mass-producing it required industrial-scale, energy-intensive processes that were not feasible without the power and materials provided by the industrial age.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Read what people say before commenting. This isn't grammar school class. Everyone here uses fossil fuels, as well as most alive. Reducing them is what's necessary as they cause pollution and contribute to earth's warming.

Why would you want to stop warming?

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

I'm sure many are, who can have more here than back home, but still think if there weren't younger women to be had much easier, half wouldn't be here. Most might be too much.

"Most might be too much?" What is that in English, please?

34 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

"Most might be too much?" What is that in English, please?

When I said most men come here for the women. Many would be the better word.

41 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

When I said most men come here for the women. Many would be the better word.

Climate, costs, lifestyle, women or ladyboys. Nobody goes for the museums.

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I guess microplastics, forever chemicals, deforestation and oestrogen- mimicking surfactants aren't on your radar.

on the contrary i resent the green scam for obstructing real environmental issues and steal 16 trillion USD and counting, a fraction of that would have already solved the bio degradable plastic bags that the thais need to maintain their food culture without harming environment

Damn you MMGW / CC ...

1 minute ago, mordothailand said:

on the contrary i resent the green scam for obstructing real environmental issues and steal 16 trillion USD and counting, a fraction of that would have already solved the bio degradable plastic bags that the thais need to maintain their food culture without harming environment

You are making a sweeping claim of USD 16 trillion being stolen. How about posting a credible link that supports this assertion?

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Damn you MMGW / CC ...

MMGW? Translation please.

I have to admire people who can convert a single data point into a trend. I am eagerly waiting for the time they can repeal gravity.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

MMGW? Translation please.

I have to admire people who can convert a single data point into a trend. I am eagerly waiting for the time they can repeal gravity.

What is wrong with global warming?

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You are making a sweeping claim of USD 16 trillion being stolen. How about posting a credible link that supports this assertion?

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/rumsfeld-did-not-reveal-loss-23-trillion-day-before-911-2023-09-14/

 scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

Yet it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

https://www.nysun.com/article/16-trillion-down-the-drain-in-the-greatest-financial-scandal-in-world-history

What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries? Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria? Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy? Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?

Many millions of lives could have been saved.

We could have lifted millions more out of poverty. The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars.

2 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

 scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

Yet it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

https://www.nysun.com/article/16-trillion-down-the-drain-in-the-greatest-financial-scandal-in-world-history

Lomborg is totally right on this. The alarmists got rich. The poor suffered again. The money should be spent on free food for the poor.

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

MMGW? Translation please.

I have to admire people who can convert a single data point into a trend. I am eagerly waiting for the time they can repeal gravity.

Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change

MMGW ... something I don't believe in ... at all.

Every year, 2 months of "feels like HELL", till the rains arrive. Came early last year ... 🙏🙏🙏

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change

MMGW ... something I don't believe in ... at all.

Every year, 2 months of "feels like HELL", till the rains arrive. Came early last year ... 🙏🙏🙏

There are plenty of Muslims who believe it's OK to kill infidels, because the Koran tells them so.

There are plenty of denialists who don't believe anthropomorphic emissions are the cause of global warming, because a conspiracy website or talking head tells them so.

That doesn't mean either are right.

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There are plenty of Muslims who believe it's OK to kill infidels, because the Koran tells them so.

There are plenty of denialists who don't believe anthropomorphic emissions are the cause of global warming, because a conspiracy website or talking head tells them so.

That doesn't mean either are right.

Why do you think global warming is so bad?

2 hours ago, mordothailand said:

 scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

Yet it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

https://www.nysun.com/article/16-trillion-down-the-drain-in-the-greatest-financial-scandal-in-world-history

Lomborg agrees climate change is real, and man-made. He has been accused of cherry-picking economic data to suit his arguments.

Granted, CCS is a useless scam. However, the evidence is without the development of renewables, the trend of warming would be even worse than it is now.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy on the planet, nuclear the most expensive. Name your poison.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Lomborg agrees climate change is real, and man-made. He has been accused of cherry-picking economic data to suit his arguments.

Granted, CCS is a useless scam. However, the evidence is without the development of renewables, the trend of warming would be even worse than it is now.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy on the planet, nuclear the most expensive. Name your poison.

Actually the warning trend can continue for 180 years before it becomes harmful to humans. But there's no money in truth.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Lomborg agrees climate change is real, and man-made. He has been accused of cherry-picking economic data to suit his arguments.

Granted, CCS is a useless scam. However, the evidence is without the development of renewables, the trend of warming would be even worse than it is now.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy on the planet, nuclear the most expensive. Name your poison.

there is nothing to show for the 16 trillion USD scammed, renewables is good as long as its not subsidized, the trend of warming up from little ice age is even better than previously thought, but warmer is always better when youre stuck in the deepest ice age since before complex life evolved,

and more co2 is always better lest its already 1500 ppm or more

Global yields appear resilient or modestly benefit under CO₂-driven warming scenarios up to 5 °C

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90254-2

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yields-key-staple-crops?stackMode=relative&facet=none

6 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

Global yields appear resilient or modestly benefit under CO₂-driven warming scenarios up to 5 °C

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90254-2

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yields-key-staple-crops?stackMode=relative&facet=none

Rich alarmists don't care about plants. They just want money. Lie, cheat and steal. Plants would be skeptics if they talked.

1 hour ago, khaosokman said:

Actually the warning trend can continue for 180 years before it becomes harmful to humans. But there's no money in truth.

And no truth or proof in your post!

46 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

there is nothing to show for the 16 trillion USD scammed, renewables is good as long as its not subsidized, the trend of warming up from little ice age is even better than previously thought, but warmer is always better when youre stuck in the deepest ice age since before complex life evolved,

and more co2 is always better lest its already 1500 ppm or more

More CO2 is not beneficial for humans. It's not even good for plants in the tropics at 900 ppm. The enzyme in plants which enables photosynthesis curls up its toes and is deactivated above 35 C, which we would have as a lower threshold.

The deaths from heat stress in humans would be astronomical, except for those people rich enough to afford aircon 24/7.

The Holocene is classed as an interglacial period which began about 11,700 years ago, characterized by a mostly warm and stable climate. Humans have shifted the needle in a mere 300 years of burning fossil fuels.