Bangkok May Be Uninhabitable In Seven Years

[nisakiman]

Yes, interesting clip. Pity the interview was conducted at tabloid level - it could have been much more informative than it was.

I just read a very good article in an online mag that I read. The author (in fact it's taken from a speech he made, but all his articles on many subjects are insightful) is articulate and objective and always makes very valid observations.

Here, he is talking about the quasi-religion of climate-change activism and it's bedmate environmentalism.

A good read.

[Thaddeus]

30,000 scientists to sue Al Gore 555, including 9000 PhDs.

[brahmburgers]

There are several 'camps' re; Global warming:

>>> Those who think it's happening and is exacerbated significantly by human activity.

>>>> Those who think it's happening, but has scant little or nothing to do with human activity.

>>>> Those who think the climate is not warming appreciably on a global scale. There may also be some of the same who think the world is cooling.

I fall in the first category. I've heard and seen much data on shrinking glaciers at nearly every mountain range (a recent Nat'l Geo article mentions 19 out of 20 glaciers studied worldwide are receding at alarming rates, and not being replenished), and on dramatically lessening permafrost in arctic regions. There is other evidence. I think all posters here can agree Man is an awful polluter. Whether the copious amounts of pollution are affecting ww weather is debatable. Either way, lessening pollution is good, no matter what one believes about GW and anthropogenic influences which may or may not be a factor.

I'm doing my little part (granted, I could do more) by setting up solar at 2 of my four parcels. That comprises both PV panels and passive pre-heat for hot water. I endeavor to travel as little as possible using fossil fuel driven transport. I don't have air-con in any dwelling or vehicle that I use (ok, I reside in northernmost Thailand, so it's relatively cooler up here). I'm just one person, and fallible, yet just little improvements by individuals can add up to big regional improvements - in less smog, in lower electric and fossil fuel consumption, less trash build-up at dump sites, etc etc. I also try to re-cycle, but the local re-cycle places charge MORE for some items than I can buy brand new. Example: 4" x 20' steel pipe was Bt.1,200 brand new, yet the same pipe (rusty and bent) from a re-cycle yard was Bt.1,600. Something's not right if used items cost more than re-cycled. 'nuff for now.

On habitat destruction and killing of species, there's no doubt we're the executioners. More species are dying, at faster rates than ANY of the planet's previous mass extinctions. More & faster than the end of the Permian (the biggest previous mass extinction), and more than the demise of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Sad to think that just one species (us) is wiping out others at such alarming rates.

Edited October 5, 2010 by brahmburgers

[canuckamuck]

No one can seriously doubt that pollution is bad. Whether or not C02 qualifies as pollution is the real issue.

We would surely be in a fix if c02 was dropping significantly, however is it possible to create too much?

[souvenirdeparis]

Example: 4" x 20' steel pipe was Bt.1,200 brand new, yet the same pipe (rusty and bent) from a re-cycle yard was Bt.1,600.

%pre-bent ; more expensive.

[RickBradford]

The Splattergate video has done more damage to the environmental movement than I would have believed possible.

Two of the 10:10 organization's (which is a high profile unit supported by the UK government) three corporate sponsors (Sony & Kyocera) have pulled their support, the equally warmist 350.org has cut ties with 10:10 and the usually alarmist media in the US & UK has been forced into reporting the fiasco.

The video has been viewed almost one million times, and abuse of the makers is coming from all manner of people who would not normally give a flying f* about global warming and who would have been unable to grasp the meaning of Climategate. Names like 'Greenshirts' have been freely bandied about.

Many environmentalists were convinced it was a skeptic set-up job until they were forced to accept that their own side had made this appalling, catastrophic blunder. They have been venting their rage in no uncertain terms.

I think that many of the educated greens have an extraordinary sense of moral righteousness and certitude, and consequently very little time for people who disagree with them. In short, they just don't get it. Hence the lame and condescending 'apology' from 10:10, which received almost as much condemnation as the video.

This was a disaster waiting to happen. They had been building up to it with several previous videos -- polar bears falling from the sky, hundreds of planes crashing into Manhattan, tearful children wailing about climate change.

They are getting what they deserve, and if this causes a sense of humility to enter environmental movements, it would be a great thing. But I doubt it will happen.

[brahmburgers]

The Splattergate video has done more damage to the environmental movement than I would have believed possible.

Two of the 10:10 organization's (which is a high profile unit supported by the UK government) three corporate sponsors (Sony & Kyocera) have pulled their support, the equally warmist 350.org has cut ties with 10:10 and the usually alarmist media in the US & UK has been forced into reporting the fiasco.

The video has been viewed almost one million times, and abuse of the makers is coming from all manner of people who would not normally give a flying f* about global warming and who would have been unable to grasp the meaning of Climategate. Names like 'Greenshirts' have been freely bandied about.

Many environmentalists were convinced it was a skeptic set-up job until they were forced to accept that their own side had made this appalling, catastrophic blunder. They have been venting their rage in no uncertain terms.

I think that many of the educated greens have an extraordinary sense of moral righteousness and certitude, and consequently very little time for people who disagree with them. In short, they just don't get it. Hence the lame and condescending 'apology' from 10:10, which received almost as much condemnation as the video.

This was a disaster waiting to happen. They had been building up to it with several previous videos -- polar bears falling from the sky, hundreds of planes crashing into Manhattan, tearful children wailing about climate change.

They are getting what they deserve, and if this causes a sense of humility to enter environmental movements, it would be a great thing. But I doubt it will happen.

I don't know as much as you re; the background of the video. All I did was watch it. It appeared to me as a bizarre skit geared to getting as much attention as possible. It seemed to work. As for 'message', it didn't move me or sway me one iota. It was pure crass attempt at humor, much the same (though less witty) as early Monty Python. They ran the same same skit 3 times, with different players, and used a lot of ketchup - so what?

Your talk of the video 'doing a lot of damage to the environmental movement' ....is pure wishful thinking.

If you've got a problem with environmentalists, then you've chosen a strange target. In case you missed the class in High School, environmentalists are seeking to clean up the planet and make it a better place for all species. You got a problem with that?

Edited October 5, 2010 by brahmburgers

[hughben]

Global Warming is yesterday's term. It's called Climate change now so when the earth cools (which is the claim now) they can use that as a way to tax the world.

I remember in the 1970s there were documentaries on the BBC in the UK telling us of the forthcoming ice age.

Doesn't Al Gore also have shares in one of these carbon emission snake oil companies too?

I don't trust governments, so when they tell me I should pay taxes for this, I immediately don't believe they are acting in the people's best interests.

As always governments do things for business interests and not for the people.

[Thaddeus]

Global Warming is yesterday's term. It's called Climate change now so when the earth cools (which is the claim now) they can use that as a way to tax the world.

I remember in the 1970s there were documentaries on the BBC in the UK telling us of the forthcoming ice age.

Doesn't Al Gore also have shares in one of these carbon emission snake oil companies too?

I don't trust governments, so when they tell me I should pay taxes for this, I immediately don't believe they are acting in the people's best interests.

As always governments do things for business interests and not for the people.

You know what Hugh, or is it Ben, everything in your post is correct, or at least on the right lines. More than a couple of people in here (and elsewhere) have known what you are saying for quite some time.

P.S. I don't believe that any government has ever acted in the interest of the general population.

[foxteen]

I blame some farangs living in BKK,don't wanna mention names,but attracts bad vibes and cause disaster,those living North of BKK are the worse ones,but is better start learn to swim now

[RickBradford]

In case you missed the class in High School, environmentalists are seeking to clean up the planet and make it a better place for all species. You got a problem with that?

Large sections of the environmental movement, typified by the kind of people who made that film, couldn't give a rat's a**e about cleaning up the planet -- they're only interested in furthering their own sense of moral self-righteousness and certitude. To the extent that they pursue that goal at other people's expense, yes, I have a problem with that.

I have no problem with people who generally care about the environment, and I get extremely angry when people wilfully pollute in the name of profit. But much of the movement has been hijacked by multi-million dollar businesses like WWF and Greenpeace. In the years 2003-2008, WWF received US$3.1 billion in funding, and I'm not sure what the environment has gotten for its money, compared with, say, providing safe drinking water for millions of the world's poorest people.

Your talk of the video 'doing a lot of damage to the environmental movement' ....is pure wishful thinking

.

I don't think so. The film has greatly expanded the size of the audience of people aware of global warming -- and in an almost entirely negative way for the alarmist movement. That is what Sony and Kyocera think, anyway, as do the film's makers, who have been forced into a series of humiliating climbdowns.

And anyway, as I said, I do not wish for damage to the environmental movement, only those parts of it which have forgotten what it is supposed to be for.

Edited October 6, 2010 by RickBradford

[teatree]

I don't know as much as you re; the background of the video. All I did was watch it. It appeared to me as a bizarre skit geared to getting as much attention as possible. It seemed to work. As for 'message', it didn't move me or sway me one iota. It was pure crass attempt at humor, much the same (though less witty) as early Monty Python. They ran the same same skit 3 times, with different players, and used a lot of ketchup - so what?

Your talk of the video 'doing a lot of damage to the environmental movement' ....is pure wishful thinking.

If you've got a problem with environmentalists, then you've chosen a strange target. In case you missed the class in High School, environmentalists are seeking to clean up the planet and make it a better place for all species. You got a problem with that?

You can laugh it all off as a misguided joke, but the fact remains that the video exposes a truth that runs right the way through the AGW movement - the need to silence any sceptics. Whether its by screaming 'the debate isover' or using association fallacies with big oil or whatever, the message is clear - sit down, shut up and go along with the groupthink. The video also shows how desperate they are to be reduced to producing such a vile propaganda tool.

As for environmentalism, you have to understand there are different types. There are real environmentalists. Theses people are concerned about the environment, concerned about things like carbon MONoxide, GMO crops, air pollution, water pollution, pesticides entering the food chain etc etc etc. I would consider myself in this group.

And there are environmentalists. These people believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, they believe that humans are the enemy,they believe in eugenics, mass sterilization, drastic de-population, they believe that the West needs to be de-industrialized and economies pushed back hundreds of years to an agrarian age. They believe in carbon taxes and carbon rationing as a way to achieve these goals. They have been whipped up into such a frenzy that they believe that unless something is done NOW we are all going to die. They believe that they have cart-blanche to do whatever it takes to save the world. After all, they are doing it for Mother Gaia, so how can they be in the wrong?

Unfortunately, many (if not most) of the people who steer the agenda of climate activism are in the 2nd group.

[RickBradford]

I sometimes hear the argument that organisations like WWF and Greenpeace are funded by donations and so should be free to spend the money how they like, in the interests of the people who donated.

It's a nice idea, but is a complete myth.

WWF's accounts reveal that they received over US$108 million dollars in 2008 from 'governments and aid agencies'. That's my money, and probably yours, too.

How do they get it? They ask for it -- or rather, they lobby for it. They lobby long, they lobby hard, and they lobby effectively. And where does the money come from for all that lobbying activity? Partly from their government funding, of course.

So WWF takes government money and uses a bunch of it to ask more effectively for extra government money. In more detail, they use their not inconsiderable financial clout to influence the political agenda throughout the world, and politicians turn increasingly to organisations like the WWF for their moral authority. This is not healthy.

And the environment increasingly takes a back seat to all the activism.

[canuckamuck]

TeaTree and Rick each get an imaginary green

[Thaddeus]

TeaTree and Rick each get an imaginary green

Doubled.

[rustydick]

there just have to buld a new bkk on a higher area so us mongers dont miss any of the local culture