Is there any organization (Thai or otherwise) in Chiang Mai to join the rest of the world? We need to bring climate change to the attention of all governments.

It would be against the martial law rules of the current Junta.

I would think most World Govts. know about climate change,

but do very little about it,they are more concerned about

growth,and have a very short term view on things,like the next

election.

regards Worgeordie

At least some, if not all, of the international schools have environmental clubs of some sort. It would be a good teaching moment. Among themselves, the schools have decent communication channels and could quickly organize a joint march if they wanted to.

T

"Is there any organization (Thai or otherwise) in Chiang Mai to join the rest of the world?"

There is no organization in Chiang Mai that has as its specific purpose to join the rest of the world. All organizations in Chiang Mai are already part of the world.

"We need to bring climate change to the attention of all governments."

No you don't.

It's too late.

Too late is right, the climate has changed constantly and is bound to continue.

Please enjoy the last few years of warming as cooling is going to be a biich.

Cooling, warming, take your pick

http://www.prisonplanet.com/1974-time-blames-polar-vortex-on-global-cooling-2014-time-blames-polar-vortex-on-global-warming.html

The people selling this snake oil don't believe it. Al Gore's carbon footprint is quite large. Count the number of private jets that show up at the conferences.

You have to give it to these global warming morons they never give up.

Had a tree hugger friend tell me, that he had come to the decision, that the sooner the earth's population comes to an end, the sooner that the planet can started repairing it self. We will never learn. Waste of time. Enjoy life each day.

I am a climate change agnostic, but I have to admit that it seems much more likely, to me, that the climate is "changing" for pretty much the same reasons that it always has.

Tell an Englishman that certain behaviour will cause his country to be warmer, summers to be longer and winters to be milder and that he should refrain from such behaviour isn't going to find many converts, I imagine. It would be much more likely that he'd be wanting to sign up for more of the same.

I may be banging my head against a wall, but I already have a headache anyway, so what the heck.

Let's assume there's nothing to this "climate change" malarkey. Let's assume that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Not just wrong, but almost hilariously wrong.

Would it be so bad if we reduced fossil fuel consumption, consumption of which causes pollution, which in turn affects the health of billions, the quality of the air we breath, healthy plant growth, heat island effects in cities? The extraction of which risks irreparably polluting our oceans, food sources and the livelihoods of those least likely to benefit from all that development?

Supporting more sustainable development is a good in itself, whether one's a climate change realist, agnostic or denier.

T

Through this group you might find Chiang Mai based affiliate organizations:

http://www.thaiclimatejustice.org/media/view/31

As for the debate about whether man-made climate change is endangering earth's ecosystems, I think both sides can rake solace in the old adage, "There's no point in arguing with idiots."

I may be banging my head against a wall, but I already have a headache anyway, so what the heck.

Let's assume there's nothing to this "climate change" malarkey. Let's assume that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Not just wrong, but almost hilariously wrong.

Would it be so bad if we reduced fossil fuel consumption, consumption of which causes pollution, which in turn affects the health of billions, the quality of the air we breath, healthy plant growth, heat island effects in cities? The extraction of which risks irreparably polluting our oceans, food sources and the livelihoods of those least likely to benefit from all that development?

Supporting more sustainable development is a good in itself, whether one's a climate change realist, agnostic or denier.

T

Very well said. I hope the headache goes. Keep banging though.

I may be banging my head against a wall, but I already have a headache anyway, so what the heck.

Let's assume there's nothing to this "climate change" malarkey. Let's assume that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Not just wrong, but almost hilariously wrong.

Would it be so bad if we reduced fossil fuel consumption, consumption of which causes pollution, which in turn affects the health of billions, the quality of the air we breath, healthy plant growth, heat island effects in cities? The extraction of which risks irreparably polluting our oceans, food sources and the livelihoods of those least likely to benefit from all that development?

Supporting more sustainable development is a good in itself, whether one's a climate change realist, agnostic or denier.

T

China, Russia and India are near the top of the most polluting countries on the planet. Does anyone really think that they are going to go along with the program?

I may be banging my head against a wall, but I already have a headache anyway, so what the heck.

Let's assume there's nothing to this "climate change" malarkey. Let's assume that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Not just wrong, but almost hilariously wrong.

Would it be so bad if we reduced fossil fuel consumption, consumption of which causes pollution, which in turn affects the health of billions, the quality of the air we breath, healthy plant growth, heat island effects in cities? The extraction of which risks irreparably polluting our oceans, food sources and the livelihoods of those least likely to benefit from all that development?

Supporting more sustainable development is a good in itself, whether one's a climate change realist, agnostic or denier.

T

China, Russia and India are near the top of the most polluting countries on the planet. Does anyone really think that they are going to go along with the program?

This attitude is dismaying.

"Because some windows in the house are irreparably broken, let's break the rest of the windows." Is irresponsible and not conducive to to bettering the world we all live in.

More importantly, your argument ignores pertinent facts.

Attitudes among Chinese leaders and the population have changed dramatically over the last few years. Today, China is moving faster than almost any country to develop renewables and reduce fossil fuel consumption. But because it is a huge economy and many projects were already in the pipeline when this seismic shift in attitude took place, it will take a while for the proverbial super tanker to turn. But not that long, because if China has shown us anything, it is that once a leadership consensus is reached, policy action is quick and decisive.

Russia is a country in terminal decline: it has no industry, the population is in decline and life expectancy is depressingly low. What it does to curb/not curb fossil fuel use is increasingly of little consequence.

India is a genuine concern because it's government can't seem to get its act together on the issue, not in the headline-grabbing kind of way China is doing. At the grassroots level though, there are a myriad of promising developments adopting low tech innovative solutions to everyday problems, solutions that improve lives while eschewing traditional development models.

Regardless of what others do, doing the right thing, is the right thing to do.

T

Climate change, global warming, a fantastic piece of political gaming to keep the hippies occupied whilst simultaneously stemming the flow of money from the West to the Middle East and generating needless business opportunities in needless 'green' industry?

Someday the Earth itself will grow weary of our attempts to kill it, and shake us all off like a bad case of dandruff.

When will people stop looking at the past 200 years, and begin to pay attention to the past 2.5 billion years?

There has been an Ice Age roughly every 10,000 years through out global history. That amounts to a LOT of Ice Ages and the subsequent warming phase afterwards. A global weather change from hot to cold to hot to cold, etc. repeatedly for billions of years, not just the last 200. The climate is constantly changing, always has, always will. Marches aren't going to change that. Marches may reduce 'some' pollution in 'some' locations, which will be very nice for those locations, but that's all.

Consider this; there has been an Ice Age roughly every 10,000 years through out global history. The last one ended 11,000 years ago... Guess what?

How do you know about global climate history?

I know about it because a lot of smart people with sophisticated equipment and rigorous systems tell me about it. You know, climate scientists.

The same type of people that are telling us this is NOT one of those natural phases.

It's funny that people usually admit the limits of their knowledge in most areas. But on climate change "Aha! I happen to know the scientific community is dead wrong on that!"

Now go on about the big conspiracy.

How do you know about global climate history?

Do you suppose that it's some hidden secret?

The same information is available to everyone. It only requires that one looks at 'all' of it, not just the last few decades or even centuries. Anything taken out of context, even the weather, is going to give a less than accurate picture.

How do you know about global climate history?

I know about it because a lot of smart people with sophisticated equipment and rigorous systems tell me about it. You know, climate scientists.

The same type of people that are telling us this is NOT one of those natural phases.

It's funny that people usually admit the limits of their knowledge in most areas. But on climate change "Aha! I happen to know the scientific community is dead wrong on that!"

Now go on about the big conspiracy.

I know that many scientists disagree with other scientists and the climate industry is saying.

I know that there is no consensus

I know that that big green pays very well. A billion a day globally I believe.

I know that climate scientists have been caught manipulating data

I know that climate activism is very emotional.

And many more reasons to remain skeptical.

I may be banging my head against a wall, but I already have a headache anyway, so what the heck.

Let's assume there's nothing to this "climate change" malarkey. Let's assume that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Not just wrong, but almost hilariously wrong.

Would it be so bad if we reduced fossil fuel consumption, consumption of which causes pollution, which in turn affects the health of billions, the quality of the air we breath, healthy plant growth, heat island effects in cities? The extraction of which risks irreparably polluting our oceans, food sources and the livelihoods of those least likely to benefit from all that development?

Supporting more sustainable development is a good in itself, whether one's a climate change realist, agnostic or denier.

T

Agreed

Also from another stand point fossil fuels have a finite supply and the main ones are currently running out so the costs will go up over time

Solar energy, wind energy and wave energy are practically limitless - does in not make sense to invest in developing these from an economic point of view ?

I have a feeling that there is a correlation between the people who want to cling on to fossil fuels and the people who complain about the increase in cost of electricity and petrol