Jump to content

This is climate change: When is Thailand going to do something about it?


webfact

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

And everyone who studies this for a living says you're wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but just one example can be seen here: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

"...everyone who studies this for a living..." This could be a clue? Being paid to push their own barrow?  :whistling:

 

Our planet has always undergone climate change!! Where were the humans, in the past, that you (and many others) would like to blame for climate change? It is the evolution of our planet (to which we may be contributing).

 

Take your blinkers off and think outside the square. :violin:And I am not at all swayed by your flawed argument. Good day to you sir, try and have a nice day, I will not be back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"...everyone who studies this for a living..." This could be a clue? Being paid to push their own barrow?  :whistling:
 
Our planet has always undergone climate change!! Where were the humans, in the past, that you (and many others) would like to blame for climate change? It is the evolution of our planet (to which we may be contributing).
 
Take your blinkers off and think outside the square. :violin:And I am not at all swayed by your flawed argument. Good day to you sir, try and have a nice day, I will not be back.


And if you want more funding then you will see it our way. Come up with the wrong answers and no more money.

One big scam, yes recycle and plastic should be allowed in a few industries. Plastic bags are the worst. Buy one small item and here is a plastic bag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/5/2560 at 5:41 AM, Salerno said:

 

It is when you write things like:

 

 

Even the IPCC's worst case scenario for the year 2100 is just under 1 m ... by 2300 is "up to" 3 m.
 

 

Actual events don't always follow some committees scenarios. It's always easier and cheaper to build facilities to accommodate more severe situations than expected than it is to upgrade them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lungnorm said:

You are really being difficult. Just check this guy out he is the most qualified man in the world on climate change Lord Christopher Monckton, but I suppose you have never heard of him.

Wow. A journalist. With no other qualifications. No wonder I've never heard of him. Someone getting up on their soapbox and saying things that you agree on based on nothing but your gut feeling does not make them the "most qualified man in the world on climate change".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lvr181 said:

"...everyone who studies this for a living..." This could be a clue? Being paid to push their own barrow?  :whistling:

Everyone has to make a living. Even those billionaire scientists.

 

12 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Our planet has always undergone climate change!! Where were the humans, in the past, that you (and many others) would like to blame for climate change? It is the evolution of our planet (to which we may be contributing).

 

Yes, it has and if you took the time to read the link I provided by the American Meteorological Society, you'll see what they and every other major recognised institutions of (probably) every country (I haven't read them all), all agree. 

 

12 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Take your blinkers off and think outside the square. :violin:And I am not at all swayed by your flawed argument. Good day to you sir, try and have a nice day, I will not be back.

It's not my argument. I haven't spent my life studying these things, so I take the conclusion of the people that have. All of them. If you can show me the flaws in their argument, I'd be willing to change my opinion. 

 

I will change my opinion should the science dictate it and a new model comes out.

 

I've been reading a lot recently about why people - even when given irrefutable proof of something that goes against their core belief, regardless of how that core belief was formed, some decide to "double down" because changing that belief is very hard to do. For you three it doesn't matter what anyone says or what undeniable proof is given, you will not believe it. And it is fascinating for me to see.

 

At the end of the day, to answer the OP's question, it won't be any time soon. Whether or not you believe people are to blame, people are not going to do anything about it until it's catastrophic. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

Wow. A journalist. With no other qualifications. No wonder I've never heard of him. Someone getting up on their soapbox and saying things that you agree on based on nothing but your gut feeling does not make them the "most qualified man in the world on climate change".

 

 

You better check your sources of information as you seem to have missed a whole bloody lot dumbkhof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, halloween said:

If Thailand completely stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, would climate change stop, or even slow appreciably?

No. China and India are two countries building coal fired power stations by the hundreds. At least they are producing carbon dioxide essential for plant life which ultimately supports animal life; which happens to include humans.

In any cased the world will continue as it wants regardless of what people might try to do to change things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cadbury said:

No. China and India are two countries building coal fired power stations by the hundreds. At least they are producing carbon dioxide essential for plant life which ultimately supports animal life; which happens to include humans.

In any cased the world will continue as it wants regardless of what people might try to do to change things.

And where is their coal coming from ? Australia, which refuses to build coal fired power stations preferring billion dollar solar stations that produce close to SFA, but will sell coal and gas to anyone who can pay for it. Meanwhile the price of electricity there continues to soar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

Everyone has to make a living. Even those billionaire scientists.

 

Yes, it has and if you took the time to read the link I provided by the American Meteorological Society, you'll see what they and every other major recognised institutions of (probably) every country (I haven't read them all), all agree. 

 

It's not my argument. I haven't spent my life studying these things, so I take the conclusion of the people that have. All of them. If you can show me the flaws in their argument, I'd be willing to change my opinion. 

 

I will change my opinion should the science dictate it and a new model comes out.

 

I've been reading a lot recently about why people - even when given irrefutable proof of something that goes against their core belief, regardless of how that core belief was formed, some decide to "double down" because changing that belief is very hard to do. For you three it doesn't matter what anyone says or what undeniable proof is given, you will not believe it. And it is fascinating for me to see.

 

At the end of the day, to answer the OP's question, it won't be any time soon. Whether or not you believe people are to blame, people are not going to do anything about it until it's catastrophic. 

 

 

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no "undeniable proof" that climate change is caused by humans. Scientists don't all agree on the data.

However, even if it was proven that humans caused it, no one has proven that humans can reverse or improve the situation.

Not to say that a pollution free world is not a good objective. They could start by banning plastic bags and planned obsolescence.

Even if we could change it, what would we change it to? There have always been weather extremes, even before GW was first mooted. Go back to last century and scientists were saying that an ice age was due about now.

Scientists said that salt was bad for us, now they say it is good, they said sugar was good, but we know it's not, they said butter was bad and margarine was good, now we are told margarine is very bad- need I go on?

 

people are not going to do anything about it until it's catastrophic. 

Agree 1,000,000%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, halloween said:

And where is their coal coming from ? Australia, which refuses to build coal fired power stations preferring billion dollar solar stations that produce close to SFA, but will sell coal and gas to anyone who can pay for it. Meanwhile the price of electricity there continues to soar. 

Correct again. Australia is fast becoming a basket case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post had little to do with climate change, more about environmental degradation. That's the big problem, people writing rubbish and just trying to appeal to your emotional side. Unfortunately many replies on here were no better! Either for or against. OK, people can have opinions, but if you disagree and want a discussion you need facts.

 

We have someone who was saying how wonderful Lord Monkton was. Reality, he may have gone to Harrow and Cambridge, but he studied classics and journalism, he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever.  He may write a nice article, but does he truly understand it? Doubtful.

 

Just a few simple facts.

 

Global temperature - if you look at decadal averages, to smooth out annual fluctuations, the temperature has risen every decade since the 1920's, apart from the 1950's and 1960's; but the rise has been much faster recently, the temperature now goes up as much in one decade as it would previously in 50 years. The temperature is now 1 degree centigrade higher than 130 years ago, BUT now rising at 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade.

 

Glaciers are in retreat, and the Arctic and Antarctic icecaps are melting (many deniers claim that the Antarctic ice cap was growing, but the total MASS is declining; the Antarctic ocean is getting warmer, and this can cause heavier snow fall). Sea levels are now rising twice as fast as the 20th century average. 3 mm a year isn't much though, but will probably go up.

 

So, warming is happening and the only reason that can currently be identified is greenhouse gases.  CO2 levels were stable for the 800 years before 1800 AD, but have risen  by over 30% since 1800 AD, mostly in the last 50 years.

 

 

Does a warmer world affect our climate, yes, but in what ways is harder to determine. Warming can cause weather patterns to change (there is some evidence the jet stream is affected, but early days yet to know much about this). Some places will get drier, others wetter, some colder some hotter (Arctic has seen average temperatures increase by 1.5- 2.5 degrees centigrade). More energy in the system means potentially more extreme events. What will happen in the future is harder to predict, but we KNOW that the current processes will cause further warming even without more CO2.

 

Change will happen, just how much we do not know. Their are many disaster scenarios, the probabilities of which individually may be low, but overall could change life as we know it for a lot of people. Some are affected now;  migrants are already on the move; in the past, there was somewhere else to go - now not so much. We could sit back and do nothing, but we can do something about it. Just there are no miracle solutions, it requires lot of small actions and time.

 

Just one example of change - electricity from renewable power. Twenty years ago it was insignificant apart from hydro, and many pundits said it would never be relevant, In UK it was about 1% then. Now renewable sources provide over 20% of UK's electricity - most of this growth in the last ten years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, rickudon said:

The original post had little to do with climate change, more about environmental degradation. That's the big problem, people writing rubbish and just trying to appeal to your emotional side. Unfortunately many replies on here were no better! Either for or against. OK, people can have opinions, but if you disagree and want a discussion you need facts.

 

We have someone who was saying how wonderful Lord Monkton was. Reality, he may have gone to Harrow and Cambridge, but he studied classics and journalism, he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever.  He may write a nice article, but does he truly understand it? Doubtful.

 

Just a few simple facts.

 

Global temperature - if you look at decadal averages, to smooth out annual fluctuations, the temperature has risen every decade since the 1920's, apart from the 1950's and 1960's; but the rise has been much faster recently, the temperature now goes up as much in one decade as it would previously in 50 years. The temperature is now 1 degree centigrade higher than 130 years ago, BUT now rising at 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade.

 

Glaciers are in retreat, and the Arctic and Antarctic icecaps are melting (many deniers claim that the Antarctic ice cap was growing, but the total MASS is declining; the Antarctic ocean is getting warmer, and this can cause heavier snow fall). Sea levels are now rising twice as fast as the 20th century average. 3 mm a year isn't much though, but will probably go up.

 

So, warming is happening and the only reason that can currently be identified is greenhouse gases.  CO2 levels were stable for the 800 years before 1800 AD, but have risen  by over 30% since 1800 AD, mostly in the last 50 years.

 

 

Does a warmer world affect our climate, yes, but in what ways is harder to determine. Warming can cause weather patterns to change (there is some evidence the jet stream is affected, but early days yet to know much about this). Some places will get drier, others wetter, some colder some hotter (Arctic has seen average temperatures increase by 1.5- 2.5 degrees centigrade). More energy in the system means potentially more extreme events. What will happen in the future is harder to predict, but we KNOW that the current processes will cause further warming even without more CO2.

 

Change will happen, just how much we do not know. Their are many disaster scenarios, the probabilities of which individually may be low, but overall could change life as we know it for a lot of people. Some are affected now;  migrants are already on the move; in the past, there was somewhere else to go - now not so much. We could sit back and do nothing, but we can do something about it. Just there are no miracle solutions, it requires lot of small actions and time.

 

Just one example of change - electricity from renewable power. Twenty years ago it was insignificant apart from hydro, and many pundits said it would never be relevant, In UK it was about 1% then. Now renewable sources provide over 20% of UK's electricity - most of this growth in the last ten years.

Don't try and confuse the issue with facts. As can be seen by the moronic post directly after yours, some people aren't able to change their deeply held beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no "undeniable proof" that climate change is caused by humans. Scientists don't all agree on the data.
However, even if it was proven that humans caused it, no one has proven that humans can reverse or improve the situation.
Not to say that a pollution free world is not a good objective. They could start by banning plastic bags and planned obsolescence.
Even if we could change it, what would we change it to? There have always been weather extremes, even before GW was first mooted. Go back to last century and scientists were saying that an ice age was due about now.
Scientists said that salt was bad for us, now they say it is good, they said sugar was good, but we know it's not, they said butter was bad and margarine was good, now we are told margarine is very bad- need I go on?
 
people are not going to do anything about it until it's catastrophic. 
Agree 1,000,000%
 


Ninety Seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is probably due to humans. You're truly are a 3 percenter, and you're hardly a scientists.

Will you shut your gob hole and inane posts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2017 at 9:57 AM, Trumpish said:

 

Some years ago (but less than 8 years ago), one of the geniuses at the Thai met. bureau pooh-poohed the problems predicted to be caused by the melting of the Greenland ice sheets, on the basis that 'Thailand is too far away to be affected' (unquote).

 

Difficult to argue sensibly with that.

If anyone in the room knew better (they didn't), he should have lost his job on the spot. Er... moved to an inactive post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RobFord said:

 


Ninety Seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is probably due to humans. You're truly are a 3 percenter, and you're hardly a scientists.

Will you shut your gob hole and inane posts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And if we agree it is, are we going to stop using petroleum based vehicles, stop making steel, stop making plastics, stop making aluminium (aka solid electricity)?

Just how much current human activity are we expected to abandon for the CO2 worriers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, halloween said:

And if we agree it is, are we going to stop using petroleum based vehicles, stop making steel, stop making plastics, stop making aluminium (aka solid electricity)?

Just how much current human activity are we expected to abandon for the CO2 worriers?

We are expected to abandon no current human activity.

What we need to do is start the process of transitioning to a more environmentally friendly existence whilst we still have that option.

That means investing in green industries, even if they are loss makers now, so that we have a future.

It is going to cost a hell of a lot less to be proactive on global warming than it will cost being reactive after we have reached a tipping point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

We are expected to abandon no current human activity.

What we need to do is start the process of transitioning to a more environmentally friendly existence whilst we still have that option.

That means investing in green industries, even if they are loss makers now, so that we have a future.

It is going to cost a hell of a lot less to be proactive on global warming than it will cost being reactive after we have reached a tipping point.

 

 

Well why don't you rush out and buy an expensive battery that will last 2 years, and invest your money in loss making companies. Put your money where your mouth is and stop telling other people how the world should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...