Bangkok weather - this is not normal!

[dizx]

Hey guys. I come from a part of the world where the weather is on everybody's lips daily. Everybody talk about it. Because the diversity in the weather conditions is quite huge compared to Thailand.

This is my fourth winter here. And to my recollection, we usually had about 7-10 days with "cold" weather the last three winters, and then it became hot again.

This winter is different. It started to get cold already late November and most of December was colder than usual. This last week has been quite cold, and you can see Thai people are wearing anoraks. 16-17 degrees at night is colder that i have ever witnessed in Bangkok. And the weather forecast tells me its gonna continue for a few more days.

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/48456.html

To be honest i love it! I love the hot weather as well, but its nice to drive with open windows, sleep without AC and so on.

Whats your thought about this? Have you experienced weather like this before in BKK? Is global warming a hoax (yes it is..) ?

Please let me hear your comments on today most interesting topic on TF

[Dr_Mike]

Thinking about the weather, I can say that the original poster did a fine job on starting this. Cheers.

We have learned something: some worship the "sky falling", others make use of amphibians to determine ancestral lineage; then there are the few that enjoy sitting back and watching us all be silly, while snacking on a turtle cake.

I saw Taksin on TV, one of the VERY few times I ever turn on the idiot box. It looked like a bunch of British guys kissing a*s to shake his hand. There I was thinking that at least one nation has it's heads on it's shoulders. I would post a Pic of a guy with his head up his a*s, but Sassy won't give me the link. (Joking).

It's suppose to start getting warmer next week. Warmer: as in scorching hot as usual. For now so much for global anything. This will be a year full of war and terror. Almost want to start a forum on that... but doubt it would last more than a few pages before it ends up being a master-debate again.

Anybody interested in a forum about forums?

Mike; good day to you sir.

I think we all accept that the 'sky falling scenario put forward by Professor Chicken Licken was completely disproved by Dr Foxy Loxy so that particular can of worms can be laid to rest.

And I think we can also accept that only Canadians can trace their lineage to amphibious lizards.

As to British guys kissing Thaksin's a*s, I think you will find they were English rather than British... :wink:

But since Sassy is withholding links from you, thought I would brighten your day with this and add a question, which recent poster on TF is this?

Speak the following with a very profound Oxford English:

That my dear friend, (as I am of the Ornithological Council's foundation and a truly fond lover of nature), is the infamous Gatorballicker bird. A strange and seriously odd creature indigenous to the swamp lands of Florida. It is believed to be a descendant of the ancient Archaeopteryx assmacker. It has been frequently sighted on this site, but has, as of yet, not been identified nor located. It can be heard throughout the forums, yet the sound is somewhat similar to a slurppie going dry.

------------cut accent here--------------------

As for global warming:

U.S. scientists say human activities have caused some 500 bird species worldwide to become extinct since the year 1500 and the rate is rising.

How many Audi's were there in the year 1500?

A knowledge Source: http://www.physorg.com/news71336240.html

[CIA_Andie]

The only problem that I have is "shower!" it's too damn cold!!!!

[Dr_Mike]

The only problem that I have is "shower!" it's too damn cold!!!!

Shower WITH someone, save water and get hot too.

(Just kidding sis)

[CIA_Andie]

The only problem that I have is "shower!" it's too damn cold!!!!

Shower WITH someone, save water and get hot too.

(Just kidding sis)

Oh....yeah! i missed doing that

(kidding too...hehe....)

but....anyone wanna volunteer? :roll:

[zeusbheld]

Most of you drink beer so I've worked out a little equation to help you see things more clearer. (and myself)

Now If we take the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere every year (carbon cycle) and converted it into 64 dozen (or 768 beers) it turns out that mans contribution equals a mere 6 bottles.

Do you think that would a lot of difference to any party or piss up (maybe a tf party;) . Just a thought..

This is a VERY intelligent post. AND makes a lot more sense than most of the

rampant screams.

As I said earlier it's not a debate, because a debate would incur that we have

anything to talk about. It's cold in Thailand, that's about all any of us can truly claim.

WE as a species, know very little in fact, yet we imply that we do, just as our ancestors mistakenly did.

i haven't seen a single "VERY intelligent post" regarding AGW in this thread, and can't remember seeing too many in TF in general.

the reason? you, him, almost all of the "doubters," and almost all of those that believe anthropogenic global warming is happening seem to be completely oblivious to what the hypothesis actually IS.

sorry, but beating the snot out of a straw man is a sign of a lot of things, but "intelligent" isn't on the list. it's astonishingly arrogant to claim to refute a hypothesis when you don't even know what that hypothesis is, let alone understand it.

my approach--not having an opinion on whether AGW is happening, because i can't be bothered to do the math--may not be a landmark example of intellectual courage, but at least i'ts honest.

just about everyone on this site (on both sides, as far as i've seen on this site) is so deeply entrenched in what they *want* to believe that you can't be bothered to be honest with themselves.

[zeusbheld]

For what it's worth, I find modern science to be no better than a religion.

what it's worth isn't much, and may reach into the high negative. science=religion is an obscene bastard of a retarded idea and misconstrues completely what science is, and does, and claims.

a surprising post, i would not have pegged you as a likely source of such postmodern posturing, i had mistaken you for having some sense. takes a lot for a post on an internet forum to offend me. congratulations! the pomo stupidity of your claim has done the trick rather nicely.

[MisterMatlock]

For what it's worth, I find modern science to be no better than a religion.

what it's worth isn't much, and may reach into the high negative. science=religion is an obscene bastard of a retarded idea and misconstrues completely what science is, and does, and claims.

a surprising post, i would not have pegged you as a likely source of such postmodern posturing, i had mistaken you for having some sense. takes a lot for a post on an internet forum to offend me. congratulations! the pomo stupidity of your claim has done the trick rather nicely.

You're right. Not worded in the way I intended. I meant "medical science" and I SHOULD have said "I find modern medical science to be, in some ways, no better than a religion." In no way would I be running to a shaman/monk/cleric/priest/minister to get myself healed up. I'll clarify a bit later since I have to get going to Saphan Lek.

[Neo]

For what it's worth, I find modern science to be no better than a religion.

what it's worth isn't much, and may reach into the high negative. science=religion is an obscene bastard of a retarded idea and misconstrues completely what science is, and does, and claims.

a surprising post, i would not have pegged you as a likely source of such postmodern posturing, i had mistaken you for having some sense. takes a lot for a post on an internet forum to offend me. congratulations! the pomo stupidity of your claim has done the trick rather nicely.

While it's worth pointing out the fact that science is most definitely not a religion, I think MM actually has a point. He's stating that in his opinion science is no better than religion. I believe he is implying that science provides us no greater value in determining objective truths than do religions. His hypothesis is based on the observation that many of the conclusions of modern science contradict earlier conclusions and in all likelihood will be contradicted in the future.

As a case in point, meetings between the Dalai Lama and some of the worlds leading neurologists have shown that in some cases Tibetan Buddhists have more advanced knowledge of neurology than the western scientists.

But now I see MM has changed his mind so now my little rant is pointless :roll:

[zeusbheld]

For what it's worth, I find modern science to be no better than a religion.

what it's worth isn't much, and may reach into the high negative. science=religion is an obscene bastard of a retarded idea and misconstrues completely what science is, and does, and claims.

a surprising post, i would not have pegged you as a likely source of such postmodern posturing, i had mistaken you for having some sense. takes a lot for a post on an internet forum to offend me. congratulations! the pomo stupidity of your claim has done the trick rather nicely.

You're right. Not worded in the way I intended. I meant "medical science" and I SHOULD have said "I find modern medical science to be, in some ways, no better than a religion." In no way would I be running to a shaman/monk/cleric/priest/minister to get myself healed up. I'll clarify a bit later since I have to get going to Saphan Lek.

you mean as in, not how scientists approach it (such as medical researchers) but in how people (customers, patients whatever you want to call them) approach it? on that i would agree, although i think the vast majority of medical research that gets done is good honest work, although it can be skewed by funding from large pharmaceutical companies.

i've noticed time after time in various threads on various sites (including this one) that when some numbnuts jumps in and claims evolution is a hoax (it even happens on football sites ffs)... well, a lot more than half the people who jump in to defend evolution... let's just say i sure wish they'd switch sides and play for the God Squad.

for the most part, the public have no idea what science can and cannot do, how it works, and what any given theory actually says. part of the blame falls to Action McNews and soundbyte culture but... part of it's just that the ****'s so damned complicated and specialized, even scientists in one discipline don't always understand the nuts and bolts of another.

in short, science itself (including medical science) isn't anything like religion, but large numbers of the public approach it either with a great deal of suspicion, or as a religion. in that sense, i agree with what you said originally (a little bit).

[zeusbheld]

For what it's worth, I find modern science to be no better than a religion.

what it's worth isn't much, and may reach into the high negative. science=religion is an obscene bastard of a retarded idea and misconstrues completely what science is, and does, and claims.

a surprising post, i would not have pegged you as a likely source of such postmodern posturing, i had mistaken you for having some sense. takes a lot for a post on an internet forum to offend me. congratulations! the pomo stupidity of your claim has done the trick rather nicely.

While it's worth pointing out the fact that science is most definitely not a religion, I think MM actually has a point. He's stating that in his opinion science is no better than religion. I believe he is implying that science provides us no greater value in determining objective truths than do religions. His hypothesis is based on the observation that many of the conclusions of modern science contradict earlier conclusions and in all likelihood will be contradicted in the future.

As a case in point, meetings between the Dalai Lama and some of the worlds leading neurologists have shown that in some cases Tibetan Buddhists have more advanced knowledge of neurology than the western scientists.

But now I see MM has changed his mind so now my little rant is pointless :roll:

not buying.

if there's one thing religion does not provide, it's objective truths. the truths of religion, if you call 'em that, are inherently no falsifiable.

i don't think the Dalai Lama buys that either:

"To defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical engagement in a dialog."

--- The Dalai Lama

[LakeGeneve]

Mike, that's not a reference, that's a copy and paste from Wiki.

Where does it mention 50 years??

Now, if 130 to 230 teragrams of CO2 is released by volcanic activity each year, but the US alone pruduces around 2000 teragrams of CO2 in a year, can you perhaps see where your estimate may have gone wrong?

In other words, the US alone produces around 10 times the CO2 than the average of all volcanic activity!!

That is a very scary stat is true. How much of that annual US CO2 comes from 24 hour cable network presenters?

Reminds me of reading something that Dr David Sazuki wrote some 10 years ago that a study was done by a panel of scientists to find out the carrying capacity of the planet in respect of an 'average western lifestyle'. The answer was 300 million people for the whole planet. Perhasp a more recent study has been done.

But I hate to add that you are quite right about one thing.. the core of the problem (if indeed human activity is relevant) is that there are too many of us and we're not using resources wisely.

The overpopulation is simplistic and a furphy in general terms but Neo is correct that it is the use of resources, the type of lifestyle that the population seeks to maintain and aspire towards.

[dizx]

Well, maybe not so cold in BKK tonight... but i just came from Koh Samed this weekend, and the weather was great! Nice and cool evening. Almost a bit too cold for some of my Thai friends. I hope this winter can provide similar weather as last year

The climate debate is just getting more interesting. Normally the mainstream media usually overlook all skeptics, but the last hacking of certain emails have gotten the skeptics more attention than normal. This is good, coz I definitely believe that the debate is not over!

The numbers we are presented from IPCC is based on models. What is models? Is computer programs made in collaboration with scientists. These programs is supposed to predict temperature and sea levels for the next hundred years or so. The models is all based on the predicted fact that CO2 is the biggest driver of climate change. Well, I don't believe its that simple. And just reading the answers in this topic, a few of you agree with me