Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

More Russian roulette

On Mon 1 Jan at 8:45am Nevillman wrote:
Tom. You appear to accept that climate change happens but do not attribute it to human activity unlike many scientists. It seems to come down to who you believe. You suggest that many scientists do very well out of their doom laden predictions. Who is paying them? Surely big oil and big industry is against them so they will not be paying. Government doesn't seem to want to hear it either. The money must surely be with the deniers.
On Mon 1 Jan at 9:30am Green Sleeves wrote:
Another year of Tom Pain being an unqualified expert in numerous different fields, undermining any general consensus amongst actual experts in specific fields. You gotta love Lewes' renaissance man. At least he is humble contrarian though....
On Mon 1 Jan at 10:11am Tom Pain wrote:
I'm quite sure that when Queen Mary was around, you two would would be saying that the consensus among the experts was that substanciation, or whatever it was, was a reality and that any fool who denied it deserved everything they got. I'm equally sure that I would have kept my mouth shut in those days, knowing how small minded and vindictive the mob are.
On Mon 1 Jan at 11:51am Nevillman wrote:
I've got no idea what you're talking about with queen Mary and substantiation. Please explain. Substantiation is defined as the act of proving the truth of something. You seem to be implying that my comment above is "small minded and vindictive". I thought I was only asking you a question to clarify your position. Can you explain why it is small minded and vindictive please as I don't particularly like being accused of that?
On Mon 1 Jan at 8:24pm Tom Pain wrote:
That's it- transubstantiation! I thought you might have guessed. I wasn't implying anything- that's your game. However- if the cap fits.... You must remember that I have the two of you sniping at me and it's hard to recall who said what as you both follow the same tack.
On Wed 3 Jan at 10:25am Tom Pain wrote:
More on Michael Mann- He started a defamation suit against climatologist Dr Ball who implied he was manipulating data. After eight years of not revealing his method, the case was thrown out and Ball was awarded costs. It appears that Mann has still not even paid that to the estate of the now dead Ball, who was not a millionaire and suffered financially from the case.
On Wed 3 Jan at 12:23pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Oh look, seems like Tom has found a new hobby horse in the Mr Mann characters. Take your hockey stick graphs to Mr Balls burial site.
On Wed 3 Jan at 6:52pm Nevillman wrote:
Someone I'd never heard of won't pay someone else I'd never heard of for his court costs over an argument I'd never heard of.
The whole climate change argument destroyed by Tom's latest revelation.
On Thu 4 Jan at 2:00pm Tom Pain wrote:
Absolutely nothing pertinent to say, but you both spare the time for a pleasant chat, what a pair of sweeties.
On Thu 4 Jan at 3:25pm Green Sleeves wrote:
What about Michael Ball? Wasn't he in Phantom of the Opera?

I've looked into it a couple of times and seems Mann has a lot more credibility than Ball. I figured that you would consider a Conservative blogger and contributor to an anti regulation think-tank as being more of an authority on climate science than a climate science expert. Seems unwise to me, but tp knows best.
On Thu 4 Jan at 4:24pm Nevillman wrote:
Although I have no more confidence that you will understand or even read this post any more than my previous one Tom, allow me too explain it's pertinence to the thread. The spat between Mann and Ball is irrelevant to the climate change debate. I realise that discovering something like it is tremendously exciting to climate change conspiracists like yourself but try to calm yourself down and try looking at a few facts. Green does seem to have made a good point and it's quite possible that Mann does know a bit more about it than Ball.
Always a pleasure chatting to you on here Tom even if it does seem to upset some of the forum's readers. I'd love to know what eighties boy has to say on climate change but he's obviously too busy criticising others for their posts.
On Fri 5 Jan at 1:38pm Eighties Boy wrote:
Hi Nev - my views on climate change? Nothing that different from most people who generally only access mainstream media. My current thoughts based on that -
Climate change is happening.
Humans can't (or wont) stop it happening due to impossible political situations.
The two sides - deniers and the scientific communities, have too much to lose; entire careers and reputations etc.
Humans have always been very arrogant about their place in the Universe, whether they believed that our planet was the centre of the Cosmos (Lewes??) or whether we're masters and lords of the only lump of rock we can exist on.
One apocalyptic event (man-made or not) and we're toast; forever just a flicker in the passage of time to be remembered by nothing and no-one.
The planet would still be here though and probably develop other lifeforms over time.
I was in Brazil very recently. Talked about 'climate change' to the many Brazilian people I was with. It's near the bottom of their list of priorities, but politics concerning equality, fairness and economic development was near the top. My concern over the rain-forests was broadly speaking, taken with a pinch of salt. And I didn't see a single electric car on the roads in nearly three weeks.
Without total commitment from the big polluters, (we know who they are) then we've just got to hope that the Earth's climate is going through a phase, much like it has many times during it's existence, and we'll obtain species survival somehow.
On Fri 5 Jan at 4:07pm Green Sleeves wrote:
"There's probably nothing we can do about it so fingers crossed, and its all other people's fault in any case"
On Sat 6 Jan at 9:03am Tom Pain wrote:
Why not move the earth a little further from the sun sleevie, then you could speed up another ice age. I looked it up a couple of times and apart from a few right wing nut jobs, the experts agree it's the best solution. How are you coping with the catastrophic weather? Best buy a couple of square metres on top of Caburn while there's a few left- I can get you a good deal.
On Sat 6 Jan at 11:29am Nevillman wrote:
Sad to say I pretty much agree with much of what you say eighties although I try to remember we are genetically programmed to fear the worst as well. It was mostly the early man who feared a lion behind every rock who got to pass his genes on.
Disappointing to hear that about Brazilian people and the rainforest although I'm not surprised. You rarely see domestic solar panels in hot, sunny countries. I'm not blaming them for climate change though.
Our only hope seems to lie with some technological solution. Governments must continue to come up with incentives for people to innovate our way out of this. Some good signs like banning petrol cars and ulez but you've got to question their full commitment and I understand people in countries like Brazil and China saying that they want their turn at wealth and development.
Experts like Tom clearly think we are only going through a phase and that whatever humans do makes no difference in the long run. Too much evidence to the contrary in my opinion.
On Sat 6 Jan at 2:16pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Rampant capitalism/consumerism and cheap off-shore manufacturing catering to the unquenchable material appetites of the west and the rest of the world are doing a bigger disservice to the environment than countries like Brazil or China. Brazil would have been taking its environmental responsibilities more seriously, particularly with regards to its rainforests, had it not been for recent right-wing leadership from nutjobs like Bolsonaro who treated its rainforest with utter contempt (and its citizens safety during covid for that matter). Thankfully with that Trumpian-esque idiot gone, and Lula da Silva back, we may get some progress in Brazil on that front.

As for China, it does have a significant portion of the global population, as does India, yet per capita, they still produce far less CO2 than the US does, as well as other western states. India significantly so. If the world didn't depend so much on China, they'd be even less of a problem, but addicts gotta keep buying and acquiring crap from them.

The other three viable targets for destroying our planet are the military industrial complex (US military alone, for example, was documented in two 2019 reports, which revealed it to be the world's largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons, producing more emissions than many large countries), aviation and animal agriculture. There should be some major reform to all of these three if we have any hope of saving the planet, and its down to all of us as individuals as well to stop being greedy consumers (material possessions and meat), or supporting endless war mongering governments that don't want peace as there is little profit in it.
On Sun 7 Jan at 8:49pm Tom Pain wrote:
Looks as if those Chinese produce nearly 30% of the world's co2. Obviously they must be rabidly right wing, better do due diligence and look it up..... Oh golly, they're communist, well I never, better not mention it!
On Sun 7 Jan at 10:48pm Green Sleeves wrote:
China does produce 30% of the worlds CO2 emissions, but it does have the excuse of having 1.3bn population and it being the worlds manufacturing base. Per capita, China is far far lower down the list. Countries like Canada, the USA, the gulf oil states and many others produce more emissions per capita. China are also putting enormous sums of money into renewables that put others to shame by comparison. So we can't really use them as an excuse to lose all hope or not bother making an effort.
On Mon 8 Jan at 10:00am Nevillman wrote:
I'm really not sure the terms left wing, right wing or even communism are much use any more for describing economic and political structures. China developed it's manufacturing so that it took much of the UK's industry. That inevitably meant that they took over much of the pollution that we were previously directly responsible for. That is good that they are doing a lot to prevent the pollution during the production process green but there is still carbon being emitted in the whole process and transport of the goods. My understanding is that they have become the world's main manufacturer by adopting a very capitalist model within an autocratic political system.
I agree with you green that much of the problem lies with the consumerism that capitalism relies on. I'm afraid we're all programmed to be rabid consumers from a very early age. That doesn't seem to be declining in any way. We're all addicted to buying more and better stuff and flying further for our holidays. We recycle our bottles, tut at China to feel self righteous, blame everyone else but still go on consuming. I need a holiday to forget all the worries. What do you think, Thailand or Australia?
On Wed 10 Jan at 8:25pm Tom Pain wrote:
We are a carbon based life form living on a carbon based planet. If you think you're pollution that's your affair. Live in a fifteen minute cage if you want but don't expect me to.
On Thu 11 Jan at 11:30am Green Sleeves wrote:
Breathtaking Libertarian dumbness at its finest. Almost sounds like every shock jock or "internet personality" with their pseudoscience claims, aimed at gullible boomers, bouncing from one nonsense contrarian theory to another for their short attention spans.
On Thu 11 Jan at 1:03pm Nevillman wrote:
No I don't think I'm pollution Tom. Carbon only becomes a problem when historically stored carbon is released into the atmosphere by releasing it, usually through burning it. I do realise that I contribute towards the problem carbon by consuming. I realise you don't but I feel bad about it for the sake of future generations. It's no concern of mine how you feel about it.
I'm afraid I do expect you to have to change your lifestyle Tom to help future generations by producing less pollution and I expect the government to enforce it through laws. That's too bad if you don't want to comply. You will have no choice.
On Fri 12 Jan at 11:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
Oh sleeves, prince of the purple prose, it is science. Dastardly denier, dealer of the forked tongue, hush thy deathly dictation. What pray, are we made of, fairy dust?
On Sat 13 Jan at 11:33am Green Sleeves wrote:
Star dust actually, not fairy dust, my dear. We can both reduce our existence to such things, but our world, reality and environment are more complicated than that. All life forms on this planet are "carbon-based", but none other than humans create anywhere near the amount of pollution through our collective activities and actions. We are the one upsetting the balance of nature, because unfortunately we have discovered how to do it. It was an intensely dumb thing to say, and the kind of idiotic thing someone with no background in science would say, in a bid to try and sound smart. Its cringe and patently obvious you are out of your depth, but lack humility and instead double down with breathtaking arrogance and ignorance.

On Sat 13 Jan at 1:29pm Tom Pain wrote:
Bravo, another purple performance, oh the outraged virtue, the stinging recriminations. The nevill green convenience psychology society, judge and jury has found you guilty of ecocide- heretic, unbeliever. The Greenshirts of the Civil Obedience Squad are on their way, the stake awaits you infidel. Because we say so!
On Sat 13 Jan at 2:29pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You probably think its authoritarian for people to wear seatbelts in cars. Did a neighbour dob on you for having a bonfire? You seem like the world (new world order) is out to get you and scupper your libertarian dream and every regulation is a massive infringement on your freedom.
On Sat 13 Jan at 8:31pm Tom Pain wrote:
Not at all. Are we no longer permitted bonfires? I love the bit about arrogance and lacking humility coming from you! That really takes the buscuit. Are you up for the top dragon job, or just bantam strutting before the looking glass? Oh and that "you probably think" line is probably THE cringiest gambit in the playground. Chill.
On Sun 14 Jan at 11:41am Nevillman wrote:
I would say that lack of humility and arrogance are 2 of your distinguishing features Tom but they are part of the reason we love you. Of more concern to me, given that this is meant to be a public forum rather than 2 people having a go at a conspiracy theorist, is your reluctance to engage with the topic. On many of your posts you just go straight for the personal insults without dealing with any of the points at all.
What is your position on 'green' legislation? Should people and businesses just be allowed to pollute as they wish, given that in your opinion, global warming is happening anyway and it makes no difference what we put in the atmosphere? Is it all a waste of time and merely destroying our economy?
On Tue 16 Jan at 8:46pm Tom Pain wrote:
How good of you to rush to the defence of your chum, though it is rather novel of you to call him a conspiracy theorist. May I suggest you keep your character studies for your patients or yourself where they may do some good. My opinion of green legislation is that it's not green at all, merely totalitarian, resting on unproven theories. I hate pollution and wish the government would do something about it, instead of wasting time and money demonising a trace gas without which all life would cease. As for the economy: its toast already, a criminal ponzi scheme limping to its final paroxysm, but if,as you say, I don't know what it means, it's a pointless question.
On Wed 17 Jan at 10:43am Green Sleeves wrote:
I hope you finally find some peace, TP. Truly I do.

"Unproven theories" - I think its fairly obvious that burning fossil fuels willy-nilly into the atmosphere is unlikely to do much good, and our reliance on these rather finite resources seems like a bit of a racket to me. Renewable energy may have its "special interests", but ultimately its much cleaner however you spin it, and having an infinite source of free energy from the sun, sounds better than serving the few that hold finite fossil fuel reserves to sell for extortionate sums. If you had to pick the "bad guys" out of all of this, its definitely the oil barons!
On Wed 17 Jan at 10:38pm Tom Pain wrote:
I'm all for renewables, always have been; I was spouting about them years before you existed. I'm old enough to remember the green movement before it morphed into astroturf. Maybe it always was and I was one of the useful idiots, young and idealistic. I'm still the latter, just less impatient and I've had more time to research things, latterly with the information afforded by the internet. I don't know why I'm bothering to say all this because you don't listen and as far as I can see, have no intention of so doing. In fact, I'll shut up now.
On Thu 18 Jan at 10:26am Nevillman wrote:
You've certainly disguised your green credentials very well up until now Tom. I can recall a number of posts which even with very close reading have appeared to be hostile to renewables.
Anyway, I am glad to read what you say about it and I believe you.
As for your piece about us not listening at the end Tom, you are mistaken. I hear and understand your argument but it's a question of whether I believe the people on the internet that you read and believe or whether I believe the people who say that the co2 we release into the atmosphere causes the climate change.
It will annoy you Tom but I choose to mainly believe the many climate scientists who's view differs to yours. There is much more science behind their conclusions and I am much more cynical about the motives and money behind the other viewpoint than you are.
You have posted that the climate scientists have an ulterior motive for their beliefs but I think it is the deniers who have more motive to deceive.
On Fri 19 Jan at 9:20pm Tom Pain wrote:
Climate science is a very new and lucrative career (see Michael Mann et al). Every local magazine that comes through the door, the TV news, the Climate Hub!!!!!!!! What? bangs on about climate change. They're teaching it in schools, for goodness sake, telling children they've got no future, causing who knows what trauma. It's BIG business with governments, NGOs and multinationals throwing oodles of cash their way. Let's face it, it's the best investment going. The bogey man big oil is into it big time. If it was discredited big business would face apalling losses. It's the cash cow of the century. We have the met office saying last year was the hottest (2nd?) ever- with it's dismal summer and usual winter- don't believe your lying eyes, We're telling you. Who's paying for "nothing's changed" about our ever changing climate, I'd like to know?
On Fri 19 Jan at 9:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well I never...... The US national snow and ice data center reported January 8, arctic ice level highest in 21 years. Don't expect to see it on the news.
On Sat 20 Jan at 10:12am Nevillman wrote:
Are you now saying that you do not think there is climate change at all Tom?
On Sat 20 Jan at 10:26am Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL we have had satellite images of the arctic ice receding decade on decade since the 1950s. Its not even a debate, you're just a contrarian willfully misinterpreting data for attention, TP. And yea, its inevitable that ice free arctic summers will start occurring this century. Not many, but the fact they occur at all, or get close to regularly, should raise alarm bells. They are already planning on increasing trans arctic freight shipping routes as a result of climate change.

But yea, the scientists/experts are the bad guys with the ulterior motives here.....not the oil and gas barons who are totally innocent and just wanting to help the world progress with their "affordable" finite resources.
On Sun 21 Jan at 9:24pm Tom Pain wrote:
Arctic shipping forecast - no ice. Yes quite a few ships got stuck and had to be rescued last year for believing this. I think you ought to tell the national snow and ice data center about the satellite images sleevie, they've probably never heard of them but they'll certainly take notice of a non attention seeking expert like you. Keep me posted, and tell me who these these oil barons are, are they reptilians as well?

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


Torchlit 126:132

I just saw your galileo nonsense, so relax. Your posts are coming through lol, not that they do you any favours! more
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone