• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About JimmyJ

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Thank you for sharing your photos. Planning to visit Chiang Rai before and now even more so. Love the photos of the lizards.
  2. JimCrane - I'm also curious why you state that?
  3. "Also the account had to be active showing money in and out on a regular basis. You cannot just leave 800,000 baht sitting idle in your account all year." Why do they require that? Do all the Immigration Offices require that? I was planning to put in 800k and let it sit, not get online access nor a debit or credit card for that account to prevent any hacking and/or bank errors to be blamed on the online or credit situation. Then have a 2nd account at the same or a 2nd bank and get online and a cc/debit card for that.
  4. "Let's also for minute ponder about the term "the establishment consensus". Who is the "establishment" really? Billion dollar companies, or scientists and grass roots? Who has the most resources, you think? Who has the most to lose?" Exactly. This is really the Occam's Razor answer to the issue being discussed. Let's look at the decades of denial of "Cigarettes cause lung cancer". All the money is on the side of the pro-tobacco people. There was no alternate product being sold by the anti people. So - Follow the money. There is money to be made on the tobacco side - including by scientists who can get research funded by the tobacco companies in search of denial/obfuscating theories. Yet like climate change, the massive concensus of the scientific community was that tobacco causes cancer. There was no money to be made by anyone by taking this side. And the tobacco industry used its deep pockets to try to claw back at every point made by the scientific community, going so far as to ruin people's lives who stood against them in some cases, as the film "The Insider" shows (true story). Likewise with climate change. Billions of dollars made from fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc.. All the money is on this side. Yet again, the entire scientific community has proven and stands by the fact that global warming/climate change is man made. So - use Occam's razor - is 97% of the scientific community wrong? Being bought off? In a situation with nothing to gain and for which they will be denounced by these industries and the politicians they own? The answer is obvious.
  5. I think one of the biggest takeaways from this thread is: How foolish those scientists are! Years and years of study and specialization in facts. But it turns out that apparently everyone and anyone is a climate scientist - reading 1 or 2 articles from a junk science and/or right wing website, and their conclusion is as valid as the scientists reams of actual data. Science denial as a populist movement I suppose follows the science denial of religious fundamentalists and has now become a vulgar exercise in alternate facts.
  6. 2 of the 3 articles you cite are from notrickszone.com. Here is the owner's statement: " I received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson. I live in Europe and help my wife, the owner of a small business that provides communication services for business and industry." So he is not a scientist in any relevant field nor does he work in any. It's safe to guess that he has never had a peer reviewed article in any scientific journal dealing in any way with the subjects being discussed in this thread. Meanwhile, I did a search for "Antarctic and Greenland - ice" and find article after article about melting/decreasing size. Here's an article from a scientific site - "Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles" - March 22, 2017 "Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles The 1.5 year old article you cite from the same nasa.gov site I link to also states " “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” However, from the newer article I cite it appears that melting ice from the poles is a factor.
  7. Here's the Weather Channel article referred to above which debunks Breitbart distortions and cherry picking - a common tactic of climate change denial articles: https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change
  8. "Weather Channel Rips Breitbart: ‘Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans’ " " 'Here’s the thing: Science doesn’t care about your opinion. Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future nor the fact — note, fact, not opinion — that the earth is warming.' " http://www.thewrap.com/weather-channel-breitbart-climate-change/
  9. A friend (who used to watch Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers) used to say the same thing to me at the beginning of the movement to ban smoking indoors. And insist that there was no proven link between lung cancer and smoking. Science is not dogma - the facts are clear that Global Warming/Climate Change is real and manmade and dire. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Sorry.
  10. Important to note that the people conducting the study were very definite that it does not disprove the link either.
  11. There's a saying in Hollywood - "Everyone has 2 professions - their own, and show business". Now I find that in 2017 everyone has 2 professions - their own and climate "scientist".
  12. So there, attrayant! Take a chill pill, dude. What's up with your insistence on asking people to justify their statements with facts??? This is a scientific discussion.
  13. Nonsense when popularized by Malthus, even more nonsensical now. "Malthus, the false prophet The pessimistic parson and early political economist remains as wrong as ever" http://www.economist.com/node/11374623 Even better - concise and erudite - "Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that Malthus failed to recognize a crucial difference between humans and other species. In capitalist societies, as Engels put it, scientific and technological "progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population".[10] Marx argued, even more broadly, that the growth of both a human population in toto and the "relative surplus population" within it, occurred in direct proportion to accumulation.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
  14. Or watch "The Insider".
  15. "...for the benefit of your dignity you need to back up your claims otherwise why should we even bother reading your posts at all? After spending 15 minutes (which is all the time I care to waste on your ridiculous assertion) searching for discredited/superseded scientific theories, I have come up with nothing of substance." He's thinking of flat earth beliefs up till Columbus, and Galileo vs. the Catholic Church. As for the former - " The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1][2] During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth And for the latter - astronomy has come a long way since the Dark Ages.