Global Warming Do You Care?

[wilko]

really not worthy of a reply but I'll just let you know that your views are banal in the extreme. This is a web site about Thailand not morons.

[mogoso]

really not worthy of a reply but I'll just let you know that your views are banal in the extreme. This is a web site about Thailand not morons.

If thats the case why are you posting ?

Continous rants and disparanging comments about the US get a response and you go to the "this is a website about Thailand" Talk about a moron, err coward

[plachon]

Now, now Wilko and mogoso, let's not drag this thread down into nothing more than a jingoistic, mud-slinging contest. It credits no-one when fingers are pointed with no substance, fact or alternative viewpoint to contribute.

It's gratifying to see that the new PM of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has put climate change to the top of his government's agenda and intends to ratify Kyoto asap, and will give Asian leadership over CC at the big UN conference in Bali next month. Also with his fluent Manadarin there is some hope that he can apply some subtle pressure to China to reign in their current excesses of CO2 production, general air and water pollution and regional expansionism, which are all matters of concern for SE Asian countries.

Well done you Aussies for getting rid of the Howard and Downer laggards!

[mogoso]

Now, now Wilko and mogoso, let's not drag this thread down into nothing more than a jingoistic, mud-slinging contest. It credits no-one when fingers are pointed with no substance, fact or alternative viewpoint to contribute.

It's gratifying to see that the new PM of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has put climate change to the top of his government's agenda and intends to ratify Kyoto asap, and will give Asian leadership over CC at the big UN conference in Bali next month. Also with his fluent Manadarin there is some hope that he can apply some subtle pressure to China to reign in their current excesses of CO2 production, general air and water pollution and regional expansionism, which are all matters of concern for SE Asian countries.

Well done you Aussies for getting rid of the Howard and Downer laggards!

Oh we went through substantive facts but when posed with rebuttals or questions he doesn't want to answer name calling and slurs seem to be his modus operendi.

I was sorry that the conservatives lost, but the libs won so Australia will continue to be a great nation no matter what, even if the new gov't mucks things up a bit.

[mogoso]

What we need is an other Mount Minatubo blow up!

Global warmth degree of earth fell down average 1,5 celcius for almost 2 years. If there was intentionally made blow up of Minatubo or other volcano, we could get extended time. Unfortunately the ashes that were blown up came down and are heavily bad for your health. Still. If scientists came up with artifiscal blow up of an volcano, that would slow down earths warming... Now how is that for Thai forum suggestion top 10.

In 1975 in Newsweek magazine, the concern was for global cooling, the coming of a new ice age. At that time these climate change scientists wanted to put soot in the upper atmoshere to create a greenhouse effect and warm things up. Now some wanna put stuff in the atmoshere to cool things down.

For those really interested in cleaning up the earth. Newt Gingrichs new book "A Contract With The Earth" gives practical doable solutions that involve the private sector with the gov't to obtain solutions. Not a big brother approach avocated by some. Tropical deforestration accounts for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions and is the leading cause of loss of biodiversity.

All those sugar cane fields to produce ethanol are adding to the problem. You wanna save an acre of forest land, give up eating meat.

[Pepe']

What we need is an other Mount Minatubo blow up!

Global warmth degree of earth fell down average 1,5 celcius for almost 2 years. If there was intentionally made blow up of Minatubo or other volcano, we could get extended time. Unfortunately the ashes that were blown up came down and are heavily bad for your health. Still. If scientists came up with artifiscal blow up of an volcano, that would slow down earths warming... Now how is that for Thai forum suggestion top 10.

In 1975 in Newsweek magazine, the concern was for global cooling, the coming of a new ice age. At that time these climate change scientists wanted to put soot in the upper atmoshere to create a greenhouse effect and warm things up. Now some wanna put stuff in the atmoshere to cool things down.

For those really interested in cleaning up the earth. Newt Gingrichs new book "A Contract With The Earth" gives practical doable solutions that involve the private sector with the gov't to obtain solutions. Not a big brother approach avocated by some. Tropical deforestration accounts for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions and is the leading cause of loss of biodiversity.

All those sugar cane fields to produce ethanol are adding to the problem. You wanna save an acre of forest land, give up eating meat.

==================

Ok I give up. Trash the whole f=ucking planet if it gets yuor rocks off.

PS Have not eaten meat since 1974, unless it was pink and still moving.

Does that count?

[mogoso]

==================

Ok I give up. Trash the whole f=ucking planet if it gets yuor rocks off.

PS Have not eaten meat since 1974, unless it was pink and still moving.

Does that count?

I've followed the same plan since the day of my discharge from the Army in January of 1969

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

================================================================

[Lickey]

for what it's worth. i truely admire people who want to make an impact on global warming by saving energy. i have also great respect for those who save on energy because it helps them to make ends meet. however, i don't admire people who spread scientific rubbish such as "a TV uses in stand-by mode 50% energy". once in a while i read even bigger nonsense, e.g. "TV stand-by = uses 90% of normal energy". i have a Samsung 67" which (according to the manufacturer) consumes 295 watts when used and 18 watts when on stand-by.

So thats 18 watts eating at your wallett, and 18 watts doing nothing because you cant be bothered to turn off or unplug the set, what do you do on a stormy night? is your tv insured if a power surge came down the line?

[JetsetBkk]

for what it's worth. i truely admire people who want to make an impact on global warming by saving energy. i have also great respect for those who save on energy because it helps them to make ends meet. however, i don't admire people who spread scientific rubbish such as "a TV uses in stand-by mode 50% energy". once in a while i read even bigger nonsense, e.g. "TV stand-by = uses 90% of normal energy". i have a Samsung 67" which (according to the manufacturer) consumes 295 watts when used and 18 watts when on stand-by.

So thats 18 watts eating at your wallett, and 18 watts doing nothing because you cant be bothered to turn off or unplug the set, what do you do on a stormy night? is your tv insured if a power surge came down the line?

My electricity bill is 2,000 baht +/- 200 baht.

For a couple of months I religiously went around turning off every unused light/TV/fan with the idea of saving some money. It didn't make any difference. The biggest single cost is the aircon.

So now I don't bother. My bill is still 2000 +/- 200 baht. Why worry about something that is only costing you 2 bar-beers a month?

[Lickey]

200bht buys me 5 pints of chang light, 6.5 ltrs of fuel for motorbike, 70 Malboro light, food for 2 for 2 days, ect ect , its 200 bht in my pocket, not contributing to global warming through power generation, im not a full time "tree hugger" but ive worked hard for my money and dont intend to throw it away when it can be put to better use,I like to see where my money is going,

[SamuiBond]

If the US was allowed to build and obtain the same % of electrical power from nuclear power plants as France does, it'd take 2,000,000,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere. Unfortunately the enviormentalists both in the US and their enviormental international cohorts won't allow that to occur. Not one single fatality has ever occurred in the US from nuclear power. But thats not the point of enviormentalists, their point is political, their point is income redistribution, their point is socialism,as appears to be your point.

Actual fact is that these Greenpeace dudes are more worried of 200.000 years it takes that nuclear power emission (what's left after using it) to be more or less okay for nature. (Are yoou smarter than a 5th grader)

[kdvsn]

If the US was allowed to build and obtain the same % of electrical power from nuclear power plants as France does, it'd take 2,000,000,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere. Unfortunately the enviormentalists both in the US and their enviormental international cohorts won't allow that to occur. Not one single fatality has ever occurred in the US from nuclear power. But thats not the point of enviormentalists, their point is political, their point is income redistribution, their point is socialism,as appears to be your point.

Actual fact is that these Greenpeace dudes are more worried of 200.000 years it takes that nuclear power emission (what's left after using it) to be more or less okay for nature. (Are yoou smarter than a 5th grader)

That's the correct answer. We don't need more nuclear plants to be started up in the US, we need France to dismantle thier nuke plants immediately. Just because France is America's enemy does not mean that they are everyone else's friend.

[TheDon]

What can we do?

[SamuiBond]

What we need is an other Mount Minatubo blow up!

Global warmth degree of earth fell down average 1,5 celcius for almost 2 years. If there was intentionally made blow up of Minatubo or other volcano, we could get extended time. Unfortunately the ashes that were blown up came down and are heavily bad for your health. Still. If scientists came up with artifiscal blow up of an volcano, that would slow down earths warming... Now how is that for Thai forum suggestion top 10.

In 1975 in Newsweek magazine, the concern was for global cooling, the coming of a new ice age. At that time these climate change scientists wanted to put soot in the upper atmoshere to create a greenhouse effect and warm things up. Now some wanna put stuff in the atmoshere to cool things down.

Dear G-man. The fact is that the bigger the layer of shit floats up there the more it blocks heat coming in. Then again with global warming scenario it blocks the hot air from escaping to space. In case of Mount Binatubo ashes on athmospere, it blocks more of the sun' heat coming and hitting earth thus making it cooler (I can throw this stuff locigally from my mind where as you must rely on books and studies)...

[thaiman]

I am interested to get the views of people who travel frequently to THAILAND on the issue of global warming to see if they really do care, and if so what do they cut down on too prove they care.

I am in Thailand a lot and i don't care about global warming.

[SamuiBond]

I am interested to get the views of people who travel frequently to THAILAND on the issue of global warming to see if they really do care, and if so what do they cut down on too prove they care.

I am in Thailand a lot and i don't care about global warming.

Wow, this is the kind of thinking you need. Awesome, yet so individual.

To this Q. To my knowledge foreign building projects around are planning to use more energy provided by the sun... Which actually (to my opinion) should be mandatory by the year 2010. Think about how many sunny days you get around here. Instead of Thailand looking for nuke power, it should truly go for the sun from the beginning. Clean, endless, exportable...

[pantarei]

Pantarei – What a heated little post. Your criticism seems to fall into the falling areas. It should be noted that these have been and continue to be refuted on countless websites every hour of every day. The most cursory investigation – at least one motivated by an interest in facts, rather than one motivated by a desire to reinforce one’s prejudices – would reveal the following:

1. Science moves forward by the action of lone superheroes like Galileo and Einstein

Crap. Now that climate change denial is firmly on the scientific fringe, this ‘criticism’ is really the only option for those who wish to maintain at least the pretence that science is on their side. Of course Galileo and Einstein – and others – were extraordinary but it’s just not true to pretend that this is the model of modern science. More importantly, it’s simply fallacious reasoning to suggest that if progress has been made by lone individuals, all progress must be made by lone individuals. The human genome project is the work of hundreds of scientists in dozens of centres around the world. Does this make its work flawed? Of course not and it’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

Obviously, science does not progress solely by efforts of superheroes. My point was that “good science” is often rejected by the mainstream (initially). So much for your crappy, fallacious interpretation of what I said. Still, nice try! BTW, I am not in the AGW business but I want to learn about science from true scientists such as you and Plachon. I assume that you will agree (?) with the following definition of science even though it has not been blessed by IPCC:

“….once we recognize how easily we can be fooled by the working of the belief engine, we can use the higher centers of the brain to consciously construct a more refined strategy that combines our aptitude for recognizing patterns with the accumulation of observations about nature made possible by language. Such strategy is called science.

Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

This elegant description, borrowed from biologist E.O. Wilson’s Consolience, provides a template that can be held up against claims to see is they belong in the realm of science. How well the template fits comes down to two questions: Is it possible to devise an experimental test? Does it make the world more predictable? If the answer to either question is no, it is not science (R. Park, Voodoo Science, 2000; p. 39).

(1) Does the AGW hypothesis make the world more predictable? TIME will tell.

(2) Is there experimental proof for the AGW hypothesis? I am not aware of any but you as a True Scientist must be aware of experiments corroborating the AGW hypothesis. Can you please guide me to the appropriate literature (not published by sociologists, see issue #5 below).

Danish National Space Center: “Cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere and an experiment performed at the Danish National Space Center has found that the production of aerosols in a sample atmosphere with condensable gases (such as sulphuric acid and water vapor) depends on the amount of ionization. Since aerosols work as precursors for formation of cloud droplets, this is an indication that cosmic rays influence cloud formation. Climate models only include the effects of the small variations in the direct solar radiation (infrared, visible and UV). The effects of cosmic rays on clouds are not included in models and the models do a rather poor job of simulating clouds in the present climate. Since cloud feedbacks are a large source of uncertainty, this is a reason for concern when viewing climate model predictions.”

http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/

This hypothesis will tested: ”A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in global temperatures.”

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3124

At the very least, this hypothesis follows the fundamental tenets of natural sciences.

2. IPCC process is flawed

Partly true but in the opposite direction. Because all participants in the drafting of the IPCC reports must agree, the contents are inherently conservative. Like all such reports, they represent the minimum which everyone can agree with. Recent work supports the idea that in some areas its forecasts have been gross underestimates (for example, work by James Hansen at NASA shows that the rate at which the Greenland ice shelf is melting is much faster than anticipated in previous IPCC reports.) What’s more, the process is open to political pressure. It’s well know that America and its Gulf allies have repeatedly watered down reports.

Coprolite. ”Elections are not decided by the voters but by the people who count the votes” (source unknown, Yosef D. Stalin?). It appears that the IPCC selection of scientists (and non-scientists) may be somewhat biased. After your misinterpretation of my “mainstream” and “consensus” comments, you ignored this:

<<Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control.

<< [Reiter] was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he "found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality". After resigning he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.>> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter >>

Can your brilliant mind find a reason for Prof. Reiter’s statements and actions?

BTW, Prof. Reiter is not the only person who was an AGW machine participant who is not impressed by their hypothesis and modus operandi.

http://www.mises.org/story/2571

<<I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.>>…….<<I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!>>

<<Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.

The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.>> This is the essence of the issue. There is a reason for it: experience with voodoo science, honesty, and a PhD from Stanford plus a bunch of other degrees. An obvious flat earther?

3. Personal criticism of Al Gore

Pointless and stupid. There’s no need to address this.

Wow! The personal business of Mr Gore looks and sounds like a global ripoff. BTW, why have the media scrutinized Cheney’s Haliburton ripoff but discussions of Mr. Gore’s ripoff are personal and taboo?? It takes a cretin not to realize that Gore created a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming. Check this out, Mr. Personal: Strategy - we buy quality businesses and management teams whose securities are attractively priced to deliver excess returns over the long-term.

1- http://www.generationim.com/strategy/

Generation's strategy is to invest in long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies.

•We Buy High Quality Businesses: Dominant market positions, strong entry barriers, predictable future, pricing power, and secular growth trends

•With High Quality Management Teams: Culture of Integrity, respect for shareholders, well managed for the long-term

•At the Right Price: Key to our success is our price discipline and the ability to buy companies at sufficiently attractive prices to deliver performance

The firm was created in 2004 by six founding Partners:

•Hon. Al Gore is Chairman;

•David Blood, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Managing Partner;

•Mark Ferguson, previously co-Head of Pan-European Research at Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a Global Equities Portfolio Manager, is Chief Investment Officer;

•Peter Harris, previously head of International Operations for Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Chief Operating Officer;

•Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.; and

•Colin le Duc, previously Director of Research for SAM Sustainable Asset Management in Zurich and strategy consultant for Arthur D. Little in London, is Head of Research.

2- http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

<<This is a personal account linking efforts to suppress scientific publication about climate science and policy by then-Senator (later vice president) Al Gore and his staff.1 In those efforts, an individual working closely with Senator Gore and his staff made false and damaging statements about my behavior as a scientist. I filed a libel suit against the individual. The suit was settled when he issued a retraction and apology to me that included a statement that members of Senator Gore’s staff had made “similar statements and insinuations” to those that he retracted.

Vice President Al Gore also tried to influence at least one TV news anchor to carry out an investigation designed to discredit those who disagreed with his personal views about climate change. His effort failed because of the newsman’s integrity. Our country’s laws provide protection from libelous statements, and I was able to defend myself through the legal process. The free press and a newsman’s integrity saved a number of scientists, including me, from a public attack intended to discredit them. In my case, “the system worked,” but it cost my legal representatives and my money and time to defend against attacks launched from one of the most powerful politicians of the time.>>

If are not interested in reading 15 pages full of documented facts, read the last 2 pages only (addendum) – the apology issued by one of Gore’s minions who was trying surpress the truth about the CO2 issue. The apology and the background are unquestionable, no matter how inconvenient.

4. Criticism of Al Gore by a TV presenter

Dealt with comprehensively here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-temp-and-co2/

<<High CO2 levels occurred aound1935-1950, and the temperatures in the were US higher than the 1990s. The decade of the 1930s was warmer than the 1990s in the US per the raw data, before Hansen et al at “adjusted” the raw data to hide an inconvenient truth.>>

5. Grants

This gets trotted out over and over again despite the fact that there’s no evidence of its being true. The BBC recently carried out a little study on this and could find no support for the claim. In fact, given the claims made in point 1 (that progress in science is made by lone individuals, apart from the science establishment) this claim seems somewhat contradictory.

Something which might be of interest to climate sceptics is an article on the BBC entitled “Understanding the climate ostrich” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081882.stm Know thyself.

Bubba, are you on ya ba? The “ostrich” article was written by Dr Kari Marie Norgaard, a sociologist at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington state, US (has anybody ever heard of Whitman College in Walla Walla??). There is no mention in the article of how grants are awarded. Where are any statistics? This is a classic touchy-feely stuff penned by psychologists and sociologists. Looks like you assumed I will no bother with reading the ostrich crap stuff. Refer to:

http://www.mises.org/story/2571 -Can you tell the difference between the mindset and intelligence of a sociologist from Walla Walla vs. a engineer/scientist with a PhD from Stanford? Of course, you cannot; otherwise you wouldn't post a link to an anegdotal piece of coprolite.

[tc101]

Every major scientific organization that I know of says global warming is happening and it is largely caused by man. There are some very vocal scientists funded by big oil companies that say there is doubt about this. There are also a few legitimate scientists who doubt it, but they are a small minority.

Lots of my friends who haven't had any science past freshman year in college 30 years ago are sure they know better. They have done no research and little reading but they are very confident.

[SamuiBond]

This is to anyone out there interested of global happenings (including warming). Interesting stuff. Free (first 10minutes kind of sucks) but has points that make you think hard. You only lose 100 minutes of your life:) :

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Naam]

So thats 18 watts eating at your wallett, and 18 watts doing nothing because you cant be bothered to turn off or unplug the set, what do you do on a stormy night? is your tv insured if a power surge came down the line?

200bht buys me 5 pints of chang light, 6.5 ltrs of fuel for motorbike, 70 Malboro light, food for 2 for 2 days

i would indeed consider it a bother turning my TV on and off with the power button. moreover, this doesn't prevent damage when there is a power surge. if you want to protect your electronics from power surges you have to unplug them. in the case of TVs and sat-receivers you have to unplug the antenna connections too.

also, i don't drink Chang light, do not smoke Marlboro light, do not own a motorbike and 200 Baht won't be enough to pay for my average breakfast. 18 watts of (i admit) unnecessary consumption is equal to 53 Baht a month (18x24x30.25=13kW/hx4=~53) do not make an impact on my wallet as it has to shell out an average of 9,500 Baht a month for electricity.

[Naam]

We don't need more nuclear plants to be started up in the US, we need France to dismantle thier nuke plants immediately. Just because France is America's enemy does not mean that they are everyone else's friend.

i fully agree! why would we need nuclear power plants to generate electricity when in every country i have lived so far electricity comes out of the sockets which are (mostly) located in the walls of the homes? perhaps the Frenchies should travel more and gain good engineering experience.

[mogoso]

If the US was allowed to build and obtain the same % of electrical power from nuclear

Actual fact is that these Greenpeace dudes are more worried of 200.000 years it takes that nuclear power emission (what's left after using it) to be more or less okay for nature. (Are yoou smarter than a 5th grader)

That's the correct answer. We don't need more nuclear plants to be started up in the US, we need France to dismantle thier nuke plants immediately. Just because France is America's enemy does not mean that they are everyone else's friend.

Naw I ain't smarter than a 5th grader. No one has one the million on that show.

We have some wonderful waste areas of land, that concrete encased waste can be buried without disturbing nature in any way. The surface above it wouldn't have a greater degree of radiation than occurs there naturally.

I don't look upon France as my enemy. The US and France have a long history of friendship. Like any long time friends we have disagreements, but remain friends, and probably will until Islamic gov't is installed in France in a few decades.

Even the founding father of Greenpeace says political activism has taken it over.

[wilko]

Mogoso - for God's sake - no everyone's sake - get some therapy!

....or at least let someone help you across the road.

Edited November 26, 2007 by wilko

[Doza]

Nuclear energy has experienced a bit of a revival in an emerging low carbon world but I still think it is not a good way to go. The possibilities of disaster and subsequent fall out are too terrible to contemplate and the problem is waste is not as easy as concrete it and bury it I don't think.

According to Greenpeace, nuclear energy already delivers less worldwide than renewables. This is positive. But the most interesting statement was this:

"ENERGY EFFICIENCY

According to Greenpeace, the government's own figures show that energy use across all sectors could be cut by 30 percent, saving more money than would need to be spent on the changes.

Simply banning incandescent light bulbs would slash demand by more than the output of a large nuclear power station.

"At the moment our power stations lose about two thirds of their energy, so there is enormous inefficiency in the supply side system," Oakley said.

"Clearly that impact alone would be far greater than a new fleet, or even doubling the size of our current reactor fleet."

Now of course you are going to try to discredit Greenpeace straight away. But sorry, they are credible and they know their stuff - even if they are a bit extreme and I don't always agree on their strategies.

[SamuiBond]

We have some wonderful waste areas of land, that concrete encased waste can be buried without disturbing nature in any way. The surface above it wouldn't have a greater degree of radiation than occurs there naturally.

Unfortunately this stuff has to be buried in to a solid base rock where even microbs don't live. Research of the world's FIRST well proven underground place (to bury nuke waste) is still done both in Sweden and Finland. Since this stuff has life expectancy of 200.000 years, lot of things can go wrong and in the middle of that time you don't start shifting stuff. Although it seems that 200 years will be enough by the way globe is currently going... Not pessimistically but locigally thinking

[mogoso]

Mogoso - for God's sake - no everyone's sake - get some therapy!

....or at least let someone help you across the road.

Chicken little why don't you go stick your head in the sand, at least that way the sky won't fall on your head.

Disagreement with ones viewpoint doen't make a person crazy, after all I'm sure you believe the world isn't flat, that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. The purpose of a discourse is the exchange of ideas or opinions. If one doesn't agree with you, their obviously deranged or on drugs or drunk afterall your omnipotent and perfect.

Well your viewpoints aren't correct in my opinion, but many others agree with you. The difference you'll resort to personal attacks when confronted with questions you can't or won't answer. I will reply in kind, only to be truthful in real life I'm no where near as nice or restrained as I am on this forum. I have little or no tolerance for the intolerant.

But I will continue to state my opinions even faced with your odious buffonery.

[wilko]

The most interesting thing about this thread is not the topic or the arguments or their paucity but the outright ignorance of the flat earth brigade and the associated paranoia......

There is no discourse just a monotonous repetition of fallacious clap-trap by people who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. A total failure to see reality as it is, to wake up and smell the coffee.

These are the kind of people who get drunk and fight because they can't put their ideas into words. people who laugh loudly in case others realise they haven't understood the joke, people who think that every ethnically different person is trying to rip them off.....that a conspiracy lies behind every govt. policy (they forget that they elected them, that it's OK to hold an opinion even though it can't hold water because they don't know how to reason or change their mind.

A viewpoint is something that deserves respect only if it is backed up by serious thought, logic or theory, but the flat earth brigade just spend their time regurgitating arguments that went out with the arc (they probably believe that AND Jonah and the whale too!)

I've explained that I consider any rational argument here to be a waste of time...pearl before swine......this is NOT and argument it's a joke! An arena for fools! A spitoonful of wasted bile from a bunch of vacuous entities whose intelligence would put them below the humble amoeba in the food chain....I'm surprised that the mods have let it straggle on as it has nothing to do with Thailand (or global warming or caring about it) - any visitor seeing te rubbish put forward in this thread would be well excused to take one look and never come back.....

[SamuiBond]

(or global warming or caring about it)

Other than this line your post would fit 99% of posts.

Global fits description of Thailand. Warming is general. That its actually one of the most popular threads says that people care and want to share their concerns.

Some good news. Australians got a prime minister that sits behind Kyoto protocol idea. point and case; Question was what can a small person do about global warming? These guys voted.

To my knowledge Australians have some of the best solar panel manufacturers in the world. They should get their products better displayed here in Thailand. Sun is something that won't end shining even when its raining...

[mogoso]

The most interesting thing about this thread is not the topic or the arguments or their paucity but the outright ignorance of the flat earth brigade and the associated paranoia......

There is no discourse just a monotonous repetition of fallacious clap-trap by people who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. A total failure to see reality as it is, to wake up and smell the coffee.

These are the kind of people who get drunk and fight because they can't put their ideas into words. people who laugh loudly in case others realise they haven't understood the joke, people who think that every ethnically different person is trying to rip them off.....that a conspiracy lies behind every govt. policy (they forget that they elected them, that it's OK to hold an opinion even though it can't hold water because they don't know how to reason or change their mind.

A viewpoint is something that deserves respect only if it is backed up by serious thought, logic or theory, but the flat earth brigade just spend their time regurgitating arguments that went out with the arc (they probably believe that AND Jonah and the whale too!)

I've explained that I consider any rational argument here to be a waste of time...pearl before swine......this is NOT and argument it's a joke! An arena for fools! A spitoonful of wasted bile from a bunch of vacuous entities whose intelligence would put them below the humble amoeba in the food chain....I'm surprised that the mods have let it straggle on as it has nothing to do with Thailand (or global warming or caring about it) - any visitor seeing te rubbish put forward in this thread would be well excused to take one look and never come back.....

Big fancy words from such a small minded mean spirited oaf. I wish you follow the last 5 words of your diatribe.

[Naam]

PS Have not eaten meat since 1974, unless it was pink and still moving.

Does that count?

it counts... as long a you did not bite off a piece and swallowed it