shamus Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Can't help yourself can you?? What does your wife think about this issue?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Isn't it good? Chiang Mai will be the next capital city of Thailand No, clearly Pattaya. sounds like they are going to need a few more baht busses then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Isn't it good? Chiang Mai will be the next capital city of Thailand No, clearly Pattaya. sounds like they are going to need a few more baht busses then Beats water taxis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
way2muchcoffee Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) Do you believe humans have the ability to alter climate change? Just a yes or no would suffice. Of course humans have the ability to alter or effect the climate. If all of the world's nuclear weapons were launched and exploded this would cause drastic changes to the climate. That is one dramatic example, albeit unrealistic (hopefully), and probably unrelated. The question is how much are the cumulative and combined actions of humans doing so at present. The answer to that question is not yet known. Edited January 13, 2010 by way2muchcoffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Now waiting for the "Al Gore lied" conspiracy theorists. I have no idea what Al's lies has to do with this topic, they are not related. Read the thread. It is clear. The topic is related to global warming and rising seas. No, it is not. That was thrown in as an alarmist side-dish, this issue has been known far longer than any global climate change hysteria. And since the sinking of the city was an issue even when we were supposed to fear the ice age coming the sinking of the city is an issue when the alarmist talks about raised sea-levels. But that only makes it clear that we can disregard those alarmist fears and focus on the issue at hand - the city is sinking no-matter the temperate or weather and someone ought to be done about it. Preventive or just adjusting to the fact and relocate some things ahead of time... So, Jt, please take your alarmist soapbox over to the other thread much more suited for that propaganda. 'Mkay, plx, tnx'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? When there is no confirmation, just a strong theory, intelligent people like to ask questions not just to try to deny such theories but strengthen them. I believe Darwin's theory is most believable for me but humanity would learn nothing if it didn't ask questions. I'm just asking questions whereas you are already convinced. Data has been manipulated, it's the coldest spell the UK has endured for 30 years but this is just a 'weather event'. OK then. Edited January 13, 2010 by shamus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 No, it is not. I agree rising water is just one part of the flooding of Bangkok. However if you seriously think this thread wasn't going to become yet another global warming is tripe free for all yap-athon, you're dreaming. It was inevitable no matter that I made a predictive comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toptuan Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 if we stop eating meat possibly we can change the climate to be more friendly, I don't expect governments to stop this madness. huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) if we stop eating meat possibly we can change the climate to be more friendly, I don't expect governments to stop this madness. huh? It would be very helpful to quit eating meat, especially red meat. However, as the auteur of the Thailand Pork Party Poll , I guess I shouldn't be talking about this. The right wingers should approve of this source, ha ha -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296646,00.html Edited January 13, 2010 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gudtymchuk Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Man, I wish this whole global warming thing would hurry up!! We are freezing our a** of here in the States!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Man, I wish this whole global warming thing would hurry up!! We are freezing our a** of here in the States!! Funny I guess, but you'd be surprised how many people think a cold spell or a cold season has any meaning looking at the big picture, considering how the last decade was the warmest in recorded history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard W Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Man, I wish this whole global warming thing would hurry up!! We are freezing our a** of here in the States!! Global warminɡ has always been named for the average effect. Some places will get warmer, some will get colder. And there may be some nasty transitional effects, like a brief ice age in Europe if the Gulf Stream gets derailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Yeah, science is complicated. Especially when you are talking about a long term phenom like man made climate change. People, modern people even more so, tend to look at the right now and immediate future only. One reason I think all the efforts to get humans together on this is pissing in the wind. Once it has become really ruinous, it will be too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? When there is no confirmation, just a strong theory, intelligent people like to ask questions not just to try to deny such theories but strengthen them. I believe Darwin's theory is most believable for me but humanity would learn nothing if it didn't ask questions. I'm just asking questions whereas you are already convinced. Data has been manipulated, it's the coldest spell the UK has endured for 30 years but this is just a 'weather event'. OK then. This is getting boring now, it's a them vs us thing, thanks jingthing. If you had read the last sentence above impartially you might not have assumed I thought the cold spell was relevant to climate change, it's a cold spell but when it gets warm and wet in the UK, different story altogether. I hear about the bbq summer and the mildest winter predictions from these 'experts' but when the previous summer and winter have gone as they have where is the confidence supposed to be in their long term predictions. AND The earth's temperature has not risen significantly as it did in the 90's for 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nisakiman Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Man, I wish this whole global warming thing would hurry up!! We are freezing our a** of here in the States!! Funny I guess, but you'd be surprised how many people think a cold spell or a cold season has any meaning looking at the big picture, considering how the last decade was the warmest in recorded history. Jingthing, I think you should read this article before you comment further on the veracity of the scientific consensus, and the "facts" that our erstwhile "climate experts" would have us unquestiongly accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? When there is no confirmation, just a strong theory, intelligent people like to ask questions not just to try to deny such theories but strengthen them. I believe Darwin's theory is most believable for me but humanity would learn nothing if it didn't ask questions. I'm just asking questions whereas you are already convinced. Data has been manipulated, it's the coldest spell the UK has endured for 30 years but this is just a 'weather event'. OK then. This is getting boring now, it's a them vs us thing, thanks jingthing. If you had read the last sentence above impartially you might not have assumed I thought the cold spell was relevant to climate change, it's a cold spell but when it gets warm and wet in the UK, different story altogether. I hear about the bbq summer and the mildest winter predictions from these 'experts' but when the previous summer and winter have gone as they have where is the confidence supposed to be in their long term predictions. AND The earth's temperature has not risen significantly as it did in the 90's for 10 years. and your earth hottest decade in recorded history is irrelevant because climate changes cyclically, we have not completed a cycle since data logging was started. But t'is an effective headline!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Jingthing, I think you should read this article before you comment further on the veracity of the scientific consensus, and the "facts" that our erstwhile "climate experts" would have us unquestiongly accept. Wow, it would be easier to decyfer the original database of emails, this is too much. What we need is someone like Al Gore to give us a summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKASA Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Rivers do what rivers do and building a city over 200+ feet of sediment will get you a sinking city every time, warming or not. That fact is so large a part of the problem the other reasons stated can be left out but for another chance to push the agenda of warming. If people in the city don't like it --- move. We should not pollute if possible, but stop worrying about it. It will self regulate in the end even if that solution doesn't include our being here anymore. 99% of every living thing that ever walked on earth has gone by the way already, even before our time. I guess the left was late, they could have saved them all. It cracks me up, the left believing they can change the whole course of the planets future. Takes a big ego. Bad part is their trying is normally a big pain in the a-- for the rest of us. Prediction, by 2050 most people will be dead. It will be too late. Oh my! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nisakiman Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? Jingthing, if you can bear to open this link you will find a very long list of your "anti-scientific types". Only problem is that they are eminent scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? Jingthing, if you can bear to open this link you will find a very long list of your "anti-scientific types". Only problem is that they are eminent scientists. This is good reading. On a wider point - Some people will never listen, the angry mob, the no matter whats. The cheif architect for the twin towers says the building was designed to take such an impact, the pilotsfor911truth members (some have over 10 years service in the marines) who say it would be physically impossible for a plane to have hit the pentagon. This world is a system of smokescreens, look back to Bush Snr and the money he made from his health system investments and subsequent policies making him vast profits, the Bush's being close family friends with the Bin Ladens. God bless freedom of information and no I don't believe it ALL. But now I've given you these examples you can group me as a conspiracy theorist and the majority who are 'given' their opinions will listen to you Edited January 13, 2010 by shamus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) The cheif architect for the twin towers says the building was designed to take such an impact, the pilotsfor911truth members (some have over 10 years service in the marines) who say it would be physically impossible for a plane to have hit the pentagon. you can group me as a conspiracy theorist and the majority who are given their opinions will listen to you Correctomundo! Anyone who believes the 911 attack was an inside job (the US attacking itself, etc.) is basically certifiable. Yes it is obvious how some factions did profit from that, but it simply did not happen that way. Lots of people also don't believe man has walked on the moon. Edited January 13, 2010 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxfordWill Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 if we stop eating meat possibly we can change the climate to be more friendly, I don't expect governments to stop this madness. This is a very good point but since it sounds so laughable to those who haven't looked into it (and still seems implausible nonsense for a second even to those who accept it as fact having done so)- and we have not had an Al Gore style movie to explain it (rather- its in books- and who reads those anyway?) I think unfortunately, itll be realised by most only when its too late, if ever at all. As for bangkok- anyone know which areas are safe to buy condos in for the next century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPosse Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think? Jingthing, if you can bear to open this link you will find a very long list of your "anti-scientific types". Only problem is that they are eminent scientists. Oopps...I opened the link but strange as it may sound it didn't change the science of AGW. How could it anyway. The sceptics, or contrarians as they are called in science, really do grasp at straws here. I raise you a James E. Hansen from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the link goes to the paper the following quote comes from and I took the liberty to highlight in bold that which are the emails a diversion for): The important point is that nothing was found in the East Anglia e-mails altering the reality and magnitude of global warming in the instrumental record. The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would certainly have done that – but they have not. Personally, I'm getting tired to having arguments with people who do not want to 'believe' their, our, lifestyle is responsible for making their grand children existence a pretty miserable one. All of a sudden every Sun-reading, Fox-News-watching person is a frigging expert who 'believes' the scientists are wrong whereas they know. Funny because the same people have no issues trusting them satellites pointing them to the next MaccyD drive-thru or that an MRI scan does show if and where there are tumors or that they can watch the whole John Holmes collection, backwards, fast forward or in slow motion all on a small silver plastic disc. In short you are all lapping up all the scientific research if it is for your convenience if however the news are not quite as spiffing then it's all a 'fraud', 'hoax' or 'lie'. Oh, how predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) Personally, I'm getting tired to having arguments with people who do not want to 'believe' their, our, lifestyle is responsible for making their grand children existence a pretty miserable one. Yep, Gore was astute very when he named his film INCONVENIENT. People will bend over backwards to avoid the truth if it creates a major bother in their life and the payoff is basically for future generations. If it gives them jollies in the here and now, they will lap it up. Its human nature, of course. Edited January 13, 2010 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hookemlaw Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 If the sea wasn't rising, it might be feasible to pump back water into the underground aquifers......though a monumental task. Does the 'might' indicate you don't know? My understanding is that once aquifers compress they can't be expanded back to their original size; i.e., they are inelastic porous rock rather than sponges. But it's been a long time since that class and I don't know for sure either so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nisakiman Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Personally, I'm getting tired to having arguments with people who do not want to 'believe' their, our, lifestyle is responsible for making their grand children existence a pretty miserable one. Yep, Gore was astute very when he named his film INCONVENIENT. People will bend over backwards to avoid the truth if it creates a major bother in their life and the payoff is basically for future generations. If it gives them jollies in the here and now, they will lap it up. Its human nature, of course. Unfortunately, the "truth" bit was anything but! "Inconvenient propoganda" would have been a better title. Goebbels would have been proud to have made a movie like that. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Al Gore would be more convincing if he walked the talk. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/03/does-al...-that-he-talks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swifty5x5 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 What's the topic here? I thought Bangkok was to far away from the poles to suffer from any rising waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Unfortunately, the "truth" bit was anything but! Saying someone is like a Nazi is cheap and easy and proves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now