Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Live earth

On 7 Jul 2007 at 3:23pm ark nerdy wrote:
Is anyone watching the live earth concert on BBC2? What a fantastic event. I'm so glad these stars have given up their time to draw attention to the destruction we are reaping upon this planet.
Answer the call!!!!!
On 7 Jul 2007 at 4:02pm The Super K wrote:
Waste of time and effort.
Sad that pop stars who leave the worst carbon footprint than most can be so 2 faced.
Didn't help feed africa it won't help global warming.
On 7 Jul 2007 at 4:31pm Andy wrote:
Would've been better if they'd sang from their own living room with the amount of CO2 being produced by getting them there and putting on the gig.
All a bunch of glory hunters who have more money than they care to know what to do with it and all of them would be better off just donating a couple of million each.
On 7 Jul 2007 at 4:36pm ark nerdy wrote:
Sorry, I just thought it was fantastic and if it convinces even a few people to cut their carbon emmisions it is surely worth it.
Please don't be too against saving this planet Andy and Super K.
On 7 Jul 2007 at 4:42pm Andy wrote:
Oh i'm not against it....but until we can get the American and Chinese governments to limit their CO2 emmisions, we're flogging a dead horse i'm afraid.
On 7 Jul 2007 at 7:57pm MC wrote:
So much hot air
On 8 Jul 2007 at 1:05am me wrote:
YAWN! seems you got more respect hugging trees Mr nerdy sir. best you go back to it and stop bothering us normal people.
On 8 Jul 2007 at 6:49am The Super K wrote:
So have the concerts changed peoples views on global warming and saving the planet?
Looking at the state of wembley stadium this morning on the news, they couldn't even be bothered to put their own rubbish in the recycling. Just left it all on the floor for someone else to deal with. As the hitchhikers guide would say, an SEP.
On 8 Jul 2007 at 8:44am Andy wrote:
I think the concerts were aimed more at large global companies and governments rather than Joe Bloggs from Lewes.
I do as much as i can....i recycle where possible, i walk rather than drive if practical and being a gardener, i grow lots of pretty flowers, plants and trees which help.
Since recycling was introduced into Lewes, i have noticed my rubbish has reduced considerably.....possibly by 75%. We were getting almost a bin bag full every day at one point and now it's one or two a week.
Unfortunately, we have noticed an incredible increase of litter in our parks and gardens over the past 5 years. Whether this is because more and more people are using the parks for barbeques, birthday parties etc i don't know but we can often get over 100 bin bags full of rubbish over a weekend in Preston park, Brighton.
One of the biggest problems when it comes to litter is pure laziness. The new generation of youngsters have been bought up expecting everyone else to do things for them...and this includes picking up their crap they leave behind.....and it drives me mad.
I just prey that i've instilled enough morals into my daughter so she clears up after her when she's older.
On 8 Jul 2007 at 9:01am Bridgeview Boy wrote:
I think it was just an excuse to have a knees up.
On 8 Jul 2007 at 9:26am Andy wrote:
I can't believe you'd be so cynical Bridgeview boy to suggest that these "has been" rock stars would only do this to revive their flagging (read non-existant !!!) careers !!!
Shame on you ;o)
On 9 Jul 2007 at 6:17am missed the point wrote:
Well done Andy, you've got the measure of them perfectly.
Exactly that - fading has-beens and predictable wannabees. I'm still not convinced that global warming is a result of human behaviour (was global warming responsible for the devastating floods of the 1940's, the frozen Thames of the 18th C, the 1976 heatwave?) besides which even if humans are responsible - surely thats an inevitable fate of nature? If mother nature decided humans should be intelligent enough to destroy themselves and the planet - who are we to interfere? These people aren't looking at the big picture.
Its another touchy-feely bandwagon that people get all holier-than-thou about, and righteously indignant. Just watch the responses this post generates, I bet they'll be furious.
Given that nobody makes paper from virgin forestry anymore, its all from sustained/re-planted man made forests, the more paper one recycles, the fewer trees there are on the planet. Think about it. As for the costs and energy involved in recycling schemes, over & above normal manufacture costs, it makes less & less sense.

On 9 Jul 2007 at 9:00am Ran Red Krew wrote:
I think Maradonna was brilliant
On 9 Jul 2007 at 10:24am The Tooth Fairy wrote:
If you really, really believe, you can change the world by holding pop concerts. (But you probably have to have the sanctimonious bono involved).
On 9 Jul 2007 at 12:30pm Maddy wrote:
I find that saying 'excuse me, I think you must've dropped this' (or, on the train 'I think you've forgotten your coffee' to posh suits, the worst offenders) and giving them the piece of litter back shames them into taking it to the bin. Not to be practised on large groups of kids though.
Some woman chucked an empty packets of fags out of her convertible and at my borther's feet not so long ago. He picked it up and chucked it back in her car - and she got out and squared up to him! luckily he's quite big - and he was in the right. What complete scum people like that are.
On 9 Jul 2007 at 1:25pm The Super K wrote:
Well said "missed the point".
Several thousand years ago ice sheets streched from north pole to equator, how many internal-combustion engines did neanderthal man produce? 300 years ago the thames used to freeze over to such an extent that 'frost fairs' could be held upon it- how many air miles did they clock up.
when was the hole in the ozone layer discovered?when instruments were developed to identify and measure it, so who knowswhat it's dimensions should be
it's all part of the earths natural cycle and one of the biggest influences is the seas natural changing currents.
On 9 Jul 2007 at 1:47pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Well done your brother, sadly I don't think many people are brave enough to do this. I remember watching the local news a while ago when they had a undercover TV reporter chuck litter by the feet of different people at varying locations (Bus Stop, Cash point etc). Everyone looked amazed, but ultimately said nothing. Apart from one man who looked about 6 Ft 2 and probably weighed 18 Stone, who went up to the reporter and told him to put it in the bin ( I think the reporter had a shock at the size of him )..
On 9 Jul 2007 at 8:32pm For The Record wrote:
I am another who is not convinced about mankind causing global warming - it seems to be a natural phenomena that has occurred throughout the millennia. I like to believe that planet Earth does (and shall continue to) look after herself.
Just as the Cold War created a generation of people who lived in a highly anxious state of the prospect of nuclear war, I can't help but wonder if the current generation are becoming obsessed with eco-footprints etc.
I'd like to throw into the conversation, the Lewes District & Furniture Now recycling truck. As someone who has to use the C7 on a regular basis, I get rather tense when I get trapped behind this vehicle. Each time I form part of the lenghty queue behind it (I've never seen it pull over to allow others to pass) I ponder about the viability of the scheme. The benefit of recycling some bottles and cardboard is completely offset by the amount of addional fumes emitted by the number of vehicles stuck behind it (as they are forced to drive in low gears - hence becoming less fuel efficient).
On 10 Jul 2007 at 12:47am T wrote:
Thank God we have pop stars to lead our political debates, after all they must be so well informed having spent years playing guitars, taking drugs, getting photographed, telling teen mags what their favourite colour is and sitting around on tour buses.
On 12 Jul 2007 at 11:56am Alex wrote:
On the off chance that any of the doubters here are genuinely interested in the science of climate change, New Scientist Magazine has set up an on-line guide that answers the perfectly reasonable sounding questions and accusations thrown at Climate Change campaigners, with sources, links etc. URLs aren't allowed here it seems, but type "climate change: a guide for the perplexed" into google and you'll find it (for example, it points out that the Thames Frost Fairs were simply because the old London Bridge restricted the flow of water to the point it was able to freeze in the winter). For the record I don't want to believe in Climate Change, no sane person does, but sadly whatever you think about rock stars as role models/campaigners, and I'm not convinced they helped given the reaction to some of their lifestyles that distracted from the message, the fact is man made climate change is real, happening now, and as a father of two young girls, I have to at least try to do what I can to give them a decent world to grow up in.
On 12 Jul 2007 at 3:26pm Andy wrote:
If man made climate change was real.....why does virtually every remedy involve higher taxes and therefore more profit for the government ?
I'm afraid the governments of this world has seen global warming as their chance to tax Joe public to death whilst getting very little done in return.....which just makes me a tad cynical if it exisits at all
On 12 Jul 2007 at 6:11pm Alex wrote:
Sorry, Andy, just in case that wasn't a wind up, let me get this straight. So governments have "bought" tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, persuaded them to spend a lifetime perpetuating lies that are massively unpopular with the public, as part of a global conspiracy for tax hikes to raise money to spend on projects to try to solve the problem that they know doesn't exist in the first place? And that is easier for them than just saying "we need more taxes to pay for health and education" like they normally do (regardless of what they then spend it on) in what way?
On 12 Jul 2007 at 6:17pm Andy wrote:
Just tell me Alex why every measure to combat "man made global warming" has to involve increased taxes ?
On 12 Jul 2007 at 6:21pm Andy wrote:
Just as an extra to the above....if burning fossil fuels was so detrimental to the environment, why doesn't the government limit the use of fuels....say 40 per week per car rather than just whacking up the price of petrol.
People will soon learn to walk rather than drive.
me thinks they will loose too much money
On 12 Jul 2007 at 8:38pm The Super K wrote:
The Government hasn't brought scientist Alex, they are all on the Climate change gravy train. If it isn't man made, too many people will lose the hugh grants they're given to prove it is man made.
The movement has been hijacked by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
The government can't just raise taxes through normal means because they won't be in power long enough to benefit from it thus the STELTH taxes and now new GREEN taxes are introduced. (since coming into power labour have introduced loads of new stelth taxes)
As like "for the record" I too am perplexed with the LDC recycling as when living up Malling we were given a Glass Bag that was emptied with the recycling. Now up Neville they won't touch it? WHY O WHY IS THIS?
On 12 Jul 2007 at 8:45pm MC wrote:
Andy, as someone who spends much more time than they would like relieving the Ouse of plastic bottles, Tesco bags, dead blow up kayaks etc I totally agree with you Andy about the younger generation's attitude to litter (i.e. someone else will clean it up) although it'd definitaly not just the younger generation.... older carp fishermen especially, have a lot to answer for too. However, you seen to be refusing to believe in the acknowledged fact of man-made global warming because the government has decided that they can use the tax system as one way to encourage the reduction carbon emissions. This is just plain stupid.... in my book it's an excuse... or possibly it indicates your very deep fear of the current state of affairs.
On 12 Jul 2007 at 9:04pm For The Record wrote:
Why does mankind feel that he is so instrumental to it all? I'm still inclined to believe it is a naturally occurring phenomena.
On 12 Jul 2007 at 9:11pm The Super K wrote:
Been here said that before, Got panned for it.
Still believe it though and I've read alot about it over the last 6 months, the worring part for me is that alot of the argument for man made climate change only takes data from 30 years! then streching to 150 years! This on a planet thats aproximately 4.5 billion years old!!!!!!!!!
On 12 Jul 2007 at 9:12pm For The Record wrote:
Two other points,
1. Most of us happilly recycled our carrier bags 20yrs ago as we were still paying for bags in supermarkets. Bags became free of charge as an enticement to shop in the larger stores (driven by profit/money)
2. In some states of the USA and Australia, deposits are still charged on glass bottles and aluminium cans. Wouldn't it make sense if we were to reintroduce deposits?
We've really moved forward, haven't we?
On 12 Jul 2007 at 9:26pm For The Record wrote:
Super K,
Be proud of your individual thought - others are not so privileged!
We are all brought up to believe in fairy tales where everyone lives happily ever after. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one fairy tale that rings true - The Emperors New Clothes (where one can see the truth in its naked and ugly glory) - you have that gift!
On 13 Jul 2007 at 12:36am Alex wrote:
Andy, Super K and For the Record, fair enough. You believe in one of the biggest global conspiracies in history. Tens of thousands of scientists world wide all deliberatey falsifying data for cash. Over the last 10 years, not one single scientific paper found in a peer reviewed scientific journal challenging man made global warming, so that's one seriously impressive conspiracy. Particularly impressive given the US government and the big oil companies have for years been desperate to prove it isn't happening, and aren't exactly short of cash themselves. Out of interest, did any of you read the New Scientist articles I mentioned to at least see how those scientists answer all the questions you and the various other sceptics have? For example, you'll notice they claim to have been studying more than the last 30 years of data. I genuinely wish you guys were right, but sadly, despite the appeal of conspiracy theorists telling me everything's fine and there's nothing to worry about, I believe that tens of thousands of the world's mainstream climate scientists have reached consensus on the issue because it's right, rather than because every single one of them is corrupt.
On 13 Jul 2007 at 7:45am dyl wrote:
I don't really care if it all ends. I won't be here anyway!!
What you sow you will reap.
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
On 13 Jul 2007 at 5:23pm Its Not Rocket Science wrote:
Oh, so global warming isnt man made then. It could be argued I suppose. But does that make it OK to carry on pumping as much poisonous gas and crap into the atmosphere as we want then ? Whether or not the hole in the ozone layer reduces, or global warming reverses, the world would still be a better, cleaner, more healthy place if carbon emmissions were reduced.
On 13 Jul 2007 at 5:53pm Andy wrote:
It's not rocket science.....answer the question "if global warming is so real, why does every remedy have to involve Joe public having to pay more in taxes"
On 13 Jul 2007 at 9:36pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Could this be an arguement for nuclear power?
On 13 Jul 2007 at 10:22pm Alex wrote:
Andy, disliking a solution does not mean the problem isn't real. Do you believe roads, health, public transport and education are in reality all working perfectly, and all the people complaining about them are part of another government conspiracy to raise taxes? My guess is you probably do think they're all a mess, but throwing money at them won't solve it. Which is a legit point of view. In this case there is consensus in mainstream science on man made climate change, the debate now needs to be about how to solve it. And by all means, campaign hard for solutions that don't involve raising taxes. In the mean time, there are some ideas that don't involve raising taxes. You can stick it to the government by driving less, turning down the heating, and buying some eco bulbs. You save money, help the environment, and can chuckle at all that VAT and fuel duty you're keeping out of their greedy paws!.
On 14 Jul 2007 at 9:48am The Super K wrote:
Can't be ARSEnaled with it any more.
Nothing out there has convinced me that its man made and that anything we do will make a difference. (we could try throwing a really big waterbomb at the sun to cool it off a little.) But taxing me to drive and taxing me to fly isn't going to work all the time the taxes are easily payable. Thats the Big giveaway for me, If you want to cut air travel put a big tax on it and make it a last resort. Not a small payable tax thats easily paid and doesn't stop anyone doing it.
On 16 Jul 2007 at 1:35pm Its Not Rocket Science wrote:
Andy, I was not even attempting to answer that particular question, because I dont have an answer to it. All I was saying was, a lot of people believe that global warming is not man made, or even that it does not exist at all, and use that as an excuse not to bother about carbon emmissions. My point being that carbon emmissions are unpleasant, dirty, unhealthy etc.. whether or not they cause global warming, and we would all benefit from their reduction in any case. For instance, I used to live by a busy road, and the black dirt caused by the traffic fumes coming into my house through the window frames was disgusting - and thats just a smalll thing. Just a point of view really, not saying I have the answers.

This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


Lewes Bonfire Pope and Cardinals 59:132
Lewes Bonfire Pope and Cardinals

@Old Mayor - you know its bad when even the British seem compassionate as occupiers compared with Israel. But yea, i can't recall... more
I like the forum and being able to respond to things I agree and don't agree with.