
Monday, March 30, 2009


Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Monday, March 23, 2009

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Motorists who have had to deal with the claims department of insurance companies cannot but sympathize with Khun Jessada's plight after he was rear ended by someone he describes as "a crazy expat" (Fight for your rights, Bangkok Post, March 20, 2009), and yet it must be said that most expats here are good drivers, much better than Thai drivers, and that most Thai drivers, though mild mannered, polite, kreng jai, and jaidee otherwise, often turn into The Hulk once behind a steering wheel, and take risks on the road that will make you gasp. It is strange irony for a Thai driver to lecture allegedly crazy expats on driving safety and etiquette.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand
Wednesday, March 18, 2009


Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Reference: Singapore-made biofuels to power cars in Europe, Bangkok Post, March 7, 2009
A new biofuels plant in Singapore is to make bio-diesel from palm oil and sell the product to Europeans at around $900 per ton at a time when real diesel is available at $600 per ton (Singapore-made biofuels to power cars in Europe, Bangkok Post, March 7, 2009). Perhaps the reason for targeting the European market is that there is a greater likelihood of finding a high degree of gullible environmentalism that might motivate consumers there to pay more for diesel if they get can a warm and fuzzy feeling of having done something good for the environment. The reality of course is dramatically different here in Asia where the rapid growth in palm oil plantations has been called an environmental disaster by all concerned parties that even include the global warmists themselves who once pushed biofuels as a panacea for global warming and created this mess in the first place (Asia's growing oil palm farms seen as climate change threat, Bangkok Post, November, 2007).
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand

Reference: Developing responsibility, Bangkok Post, March 8, 2009
Tens of thousands of climate scientists flew in from around the world to gather in Bali in 2007 and Poznan in 2008 and they are going to do it again in Copenhagen in 2009, and yet, these thousands of brilliant minds have yet to come up with practical plan of action for mankind to mitigate climate change that is allegedly being caused by human activity (Developing responsibility, Bangkok Post, March 8, 2009). The elusive nature of this agreement likely derives from a mis-specified and flawed problem statement for mankind neither causes climate change nor has any leverage over nature to mitigate climate change. To appreciate the relative irrelevance of man on a planetary scale consider that if one could amass at one place and at a single point in time the cumulative total of all the energy mankind has ever produced from fossil fuels, one would not have enough energy to cause a single hurricane. Copenhagen is a do or die meeting for the global warmists, and given the current state of global economics and nature's refusal to cooperate with the dire predictions of the warmists, it is more likely to be die than do. That will be a good thing because it will force these thousands of scientists to go home and get real jobs that create real economic value instead of spinning the global warming wheel and diverting so much research funding into a black hole.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand
Thursday, March 05, 2009

Monday, March 02, 2009

"The current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change. The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth's temperature in the past.If you can't model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?
CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving "pollutant" and "poison" of their original meaning. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often inject CO2 as a nutrient for their crops. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the level of atmospheric CO2 was about 1000 ppm far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We are all aware that "the green revolution" has increased crop yields around the world. Part of this wonderful development is due to improved crop varieties, better use of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, etc. But no small part of the yield improvement has come from increased atmospheric levels of CO2. Crop yields will continue to increase as CO2 levels go up, since we are
still far from the optimum levels for plant growth of 1000 ppm.
Many of the frightening scenarios about global warming come from large computer calculations, "general circulation models," that try to mimic the behavior of the earth's climate as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Climate models use increasingly capable and expensive computers. But their predictions have not been very good. For example, none of them predicted the lack of warming that we have experienced during the past ten years. All the models assume the water feedback is positive, while satellite observations suggest that the feedback is zero or negative.
This brings up the frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea that there is an impending disaster from climate change, and that it may already be too late to avert this catastrophe, even if we stop burning fossil fuels now. We are told that only a few flat-earthers still have any doubt about the calamitous effects of continued CO2 emissions. There are a number of answers to this assertion. First, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, the consensus is often wrong. Secondly, I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis.There may be an illusion of consensus. The climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause. Hysterical op-ed's lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action. Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. Even elementary school teachers and writers of children's books are enlisted to terrify our children and to promote the idea of impending climate doom. Children should not be force-fed propaganda masquerading as science."
Cha-am Jamal
Thursday, February 26, 2009

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Reference: Melt in Antarctica much faster, Bangkok Post, February 26, 2009
Global warming scientists report that the melting of Antarctica is more severe than "previously thought" because the melt is not limited to the Antarctic Peninsula but extends to West Anarctica as well (Melt in Antarctica much faster, Bangkok Post, February 26, 2009). These scientists apparently have not read reports by their fellow global warming scientists claiming that the Antarctic melt imposed by man-made global warming was not limited to Western Antarctica but was continent-wide (Global warming hitting all of Antarctica, Bangkok Post, January 23, 2009). What or what was not previously thought is apparently not well understood. Also of note is that a localized melting of a specific glacier located above known volcanic activity underneath the ice ( The fire below, Bangkok Post, April 28, 2008) might be explained in ways other than global warming since one would expect that global warming would be more global in nature.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand
Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Australian authorities are urging married people not to divorce on the basis that living separate lives would increase their carbon footprint and exacerbate global warming (Divorce hits climate, Bangkok Post, February 25, 2009). It is an absurd proposition. There are likely many good reasons to marry and to stay married but surely global warming is not one of them. The global warming hype has become a circus and this character of the movement removes all doubt that their arguments are more theater than substance.
Cha-am Jamal, Thailand
Monday, February 23, 2009

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Tuesday, February 17, 2009
