On Thu 20 Jun at 10:54pm Tom Pain wrote:
I've missed the fascinating talk about climate change and flooding in the Ouse valley, such a shame. It seems that the climate is getting wetter which is a surprise to me living in the Sahara-like desert of England. I never knew that rivers flooded before the hockey stick hit us. I must have missed the 2000 and the 1960 episodes, oh well. I always wondered why Watergate Lane was so called but I suppose they had climate change in the good old days as well. Looking on the bright side, I suppose next summer, if we get one, I won't need to go to Tide Mills for a dip in the briny.
On Fri 21 Jun at 12:26pm Green Sleeves wrote:
This message was approved by the oil and gas industries all around the world, pumping out lovely fumes and co2 as well as disinformation for idiots.
On Fri 21 Jun at 3:30pm Nevillman wrote:
I believe the scientists who give evidence to show that there is less ice than there was 20 years ago. You happen to believe other people Tom who mainly seem to be sponsored by the energy industry but I have seen no evidence to support their view that either it isn't happening or has always happened and is normal and the fact that Lewes has a road called Watergate lane doesn't cut it with me.
If the temperature of the earth warms, more ice will melt and the sea level will rise. This will include the level of the river ouse so there will be more risk of flooding in Lewes.
You seem to be confusing weather and climate again Tom.
I sometimes think that all those years of trying to put you right on issues like this had no effect at all. I've quite enjoyed not even trying to argue with you but I'm afraid I weakened, rose to the bait and now loathe myself again.
Presumably you're giving your usual contribution to the political life of the country and helping keep democracy alive by not voting again Tom. Given what I know of your previous voting history that is to be welcomed.
On Fri 21 Jun at 9:29pm Tom Pain wrote:
So climate is a 20 year thing eh? How about 50 years ago when those unimpeachable scientists were predicting an ice age? Idiots eh? Same old trolls, ad hominems ad nauseum ad infinitum.
On Fri 21 Jun at 11:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
Addendum- re comment on voting and democracy. To find out something about our wonderful system I call your attention to YouTube - Resistance GB podcast#6 with Andrew Bridgen. What a can of worms he reveals, it's mind boggling and I'm only half way through it.
On Sat 22 Jun at 9:50am Green Sleeves wrote:
" How about 50 years ago when those unimpeachable scientists were predicting an ice age? Idiots eh? Same old trolls, ad hominems ad nauseum ad infinitum." - this was not mainstream scientific thinking at the time, for the umpteenth time. But thanks for trying to bring it up again, as if the previous times it were debunked have lapsed in your memory. It wasn't EVER a general consensus like it is today (you found some small article from a newspaper clipping in the early 70s), and given the advancements in technology since way back then, it stands to reason that we are more confident now about these things than we have ever been before. Suggesting this is some sort of massive scientific community u-turn is extremely disingenuous, but that is textbook 101 for TP.
LOL @ Andrew Bridgen. Another great reliable source for anything dodgy. Another lousy tory conspiratorial brexit headbanger, someone who has been caught out for lying under oath. Now a Reclaim defector....you really do know how to pick 'em.
On Sun 23 Jun at 7:28am SHS-2 wrote:
Worst recorded Lewes river Ouse flooding January 1772 (235 cubic metres per second dishcarge). October 1852 2nd worst (230 cmps). November 1960 was a pathetic 165 cmps and exceeded also by floods in December 1801 (175) and November 1875 (190). Proof that it often rains.
On Sun 23 Jun at 11:01pm Tom Pain wrote:
Wonderful shs. Perhaps, no that's far too optimistic, the viridian viper might realise that over a century ago people could count beyond their number of fingers. It WAS mainstream in the seventies greeny, in many publications although I certainly don't expect you to be aware of it. Technology was different- before you invented the internet men walked on the moon, they ain't done it since. Climate science wasn't trendy in those days and didn't attract the big money. I'm sure Bridgen would be mortified by your ad hominem libellous smears, are you really Piers Morgan, I believe he hails from Newick?
On Mon 24 Jun at 9:22am Green Sleeves wrote:
Wrong. Being covered in some mainstream media outlets a few times in the 1970s, doesn't mean it was scientific consensus like climate-change today is. This is total false equivalence, and again, massively disingenuous to imply that the science community has done some sort of 180 on this. The whole "walking on the moon" technology comment was also meaningless. The fact we haven't gone back to the moon (yet) has nothing to do with humanity going backwards technologically or our understanding of science, or the cosmos....let alone earths climate. That was just a benefit of the Cold War/Space Race, where both countries were putting insane sums of money into doing "firsts" to out-do each other. Junk-measuring, to a certain extent. We know A LOT more now than we do then, and that is to be expected with 5 decades of collaboration, technological advancements and progress.
Andrew Bridgen just hopes nobody googles his name or looks at his wikipedia page. An opportunist politician who has been more of a back-stabber than any kind of whistle-blower there for the greater good. And oh look, a covid19 conspiracy theorist, brexit headbanger and pro-capital punishment loon. Yeah, i thought it would be best for people to have some context first (if anyone is reading/seeing this stupid thread).
On Thu 27 Jun at 2:45pm Tom Pain wrote:
Wiki !!!! Edited non stop by every political organisation in the universe.
Why does google tell me that my connection is not private and people may be trying to steal information half the time I try to get the forum page? Duck just won't go there either.
On Mon 1 Jul at 7:25pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ok so you don't trust wiki....so which part is a lie from his wiki page? Saying the covid vaccine was the biggest crime since the holocaust? Did the high court not find him guilty of lying under oath while trying to rip off his own family? Yeah, he sounds like a good dude.....but maybe Wikipedia just made it up and the citations and sources are fake just like the moon landings and climate change.
On Tue 2 Jul at 11:18pm Tom Pain wrote:
If you don't want to hear his side of things that's your decision. By the way, he's an Independent candidate, not as you erroneously stated. Have you seen the latest on the Pacific atolls? I wonder why they're not disappearing after all? I'm also intrigued by the met office suddenly offering farenheit temperatures on their forecasts; it wouldn't be because they have a higher number would it? It's quite a surprise to see you doubting the moon landings greeny but I suppose that after your sudden volte face on SIR Smarmer it's not unusual.
On Wed 3 Jul at 9:27am Green Sleeves wrote:
There goes me thinking they only kept "Fahrenheit" alive for old stick-in-the-muds like you, Tom Pain! But lets be clear, its no climate conspiracy....they have been using "F" for years. Seems us brits and americans can't be weaned off it that easily in place for the more logical Celsius measurement (science folks aside). Perhaps you're right Tom, its just to scare people with bigger numbers......lol
My contempt for Starmer has been gradual. Of course i gave him the time of day when he was in Corbyns cabinet, was pro-EU, and then during Covid held Boris Johnson to account as any good opposition leader should. His downfall has been his u-turns and pandering to the right by shunning the left. Demonising Jeremy Corbyn may be a peculiar vote-winner for some, but it seems petty and juvenile to others. Who and what does he actually stand for? Still, anything is better than the Tories right now, so roll on Thursday.
On Sun 7 Jul at 6:16pm Tom Pain wrote:
Unfortunately I believe Corbyn's a Fabian to match the globalist Trilateralist Smarmer.
On Mon 8 Jul at 10:18am Nevillman wrote:
Apparently globalist means someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way rather than on the basis of what is best for one country. Trilateralist means the policy of maintaining relations between three nations. I'm not at all clear on what it means to be a globalist trilateralist Tom. I'm pretty sure you're not meaning it as a good thing but would love to hear your explanation of what it means and why I should be worried about it.
I'm sure Corbyn would be happy to be considered a Fabian, whether he is actually a member of the society or not. I'm not sure how that can be said to match starmer.
On Mon 8 Jul at 1:53pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Virtually every Labour leader have been Fabian society members, including Starmer, Blair and Corbyn. Its not some secret club with a unique handshake. Tom just gets spooked easily. Unless it comes to covid or climate change of course.
On Tue 9 Jul at 8:54pm Tom Pain wrote:
Quite so greeny,people can go to meetings of the Fabian society and the trilateral Commission if they are invited. Oh, are they before a public gallery as well? Are they in favour of a world government? Do you know? What's the consensus scientific opinion? What was the consensus opinion when Galileo was strutting his stuff?
On Wed 10 Jul at 10:56am Green Sleeves wrote:
Galileo wasn't rejected by the science community or his contemparies at the time, many even agreed and acknowledged his observations. It was religious morons that were challenging it....not overly dissimilar today, but religion has nothing to add since that time, where as science has satellites and supercomputers to evidence and measure their claims.
On Fri 12 Jul at 3:41pm Tom Pain wrote:
Galileo was rejected by the status quo of his time, thus the case is very relevant. Those computer programs get up to all sorts of mischief with their tweaking and modelling of the raw measured data. See climategate for details and the notorious Neil Ferguson.
On Fri 12 Jul at 4:17pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Wrong, the status quo and scientific general consensus are different things, and many of his contemparies agreed and shared his observations. The church not so much, and they were in control then. Now, not so much, hence why most people don't believe in religious loony tunes stuff and listen to scientists who base their findings on evidence.
It's just another example of false equivalence from you. It's not relevant, just a tedious diversion.
On Tue 27 Aug at 5:32pm cruss-it wrote:
Oh, I just noticed that the controversy on the issue of climate change is still very much alive. I don’t believe that one can be completely certain that science is wrong, but I do think that we should not disregard science lightly. As with most things, there are always doubts in such matters, but it is a known fact that the vast majority of climate scientists are of the belief that climate change is partly caused by human activity.
On Tue 27 Aug at 11:03pm daniel greep wrote:
You're right, it's good and all, but I hate when people say there is a study about some random stuff and it's all made up. I mean, people are using science to entertain their delusional opinions sometimes
On Wed 28 Aug at 9:42pm capitalfinance wrote:
There's a study that concluded that daniep greep is delusional about others having delusions
*only jokes
On Fri 30 Aug at 8:48pm daniel greep wrote:
I checked that (it’s true)