On Mon 8 Nov at 10:34am Nevillman wrote:
I actually do partially agree with mister d that it is a shame that the origins of bonfire lie in anti Catholicism and that there may still be an element of it for a very few people. Either the people who put up the no popery banner in cliffe should have a good hard think about it and realise that traditions can change or someone should launch a legal challenge. I can't believe it is legal and it is certainly a stain on bonfire.
The fact remains though, that the vast majority of people enjoy bonfire for very different reasons. It is not remotely plausible to expect people to start celebrating something else instead. Lewes has evolved a unique and valuable bonfire night that we should value highly. I'm sure that mister d is unaware of the tens of thousands of people who had a really special evening on Friday, either participating of watching. Please don't try to ruin it for them.
On Mon 8 Nov at 9:23pm David Stanley wrote:
If they just replaced " No Popery" with " It's OK to be Catholic" everything would be just fine.....
On Mon 8 Nov at 10:31pm Tom Pain wrote:
Carbon neutral by 2030. You won't be allowed to light a cigarette let alone a bonfire.
On Tue 9 Nov at 1:28pm Green Sleeves wrote:
If Bhutan can do it (become carbon neutral), so can Britain!
We should really be taking it seriously, but sadly not enough of us will as human greed is probably impossible to overcome. With that in mind, we will have to just adapt and migrate north as a species over the next several hundred years....or to the south pole, which is a land-mass that will surely be utilised one day in earths future as temperatures soar. Hopefully new technologies and innovation will go some way to mitigate any serious changes, as well as facilitate any mass population movement.
Unless the problem directly impacts some people, it doesn't really exist in their eyes, or it seems unlikely to impact them in a meaningful way with whats left of their lives. Yes, its selfish and idiotic, but humans are still quite primitive and not everyone has caught up or can see the broader picture. I suppose we can try to absolve any guilt by pretending its all a big hoax and actually, the big multi-billion dollar oil companies have the planets best interests at heart....but I'd be surprised if anyone truly believed that nonsense. Meh.
On Tue 9 Nov at 3:15pm Tom Pain wrote:
About five thousand years ago, if you follow the SCIENCE, trees were growing in the arctic circle, their fossilised remains are on the shore of northern Alaska.ERgo- it must have been much warmer then. ACORDING TO THE iCE (CAPITAL malfunction) core evaluations by SCIENTISTS, the carbon dioxide levels were much lower than at present. An ICE FREE ARCTIC WIth lower co2 ? That's an inconvenient truth eh? Im surprised that you're still using the old big oil canard. The investors in big oil are also invested in renewables so it means nothing to them if oil gets the big heave ho. THINk man. We're long past big oil's Al Gore, and the rest of those mountebank's scientific,wink, wink, prediction that the arctic would have melted years ago. They were demonstrably wrong, why do you want them to be right so much that you deny plain fact. Herd mentality? Meh, meh!
On Tue 9 Nov at 3:59pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Nice claims, lets see how quickly these can be debunked like every other anti-science theory you peddle and hope to get away with in the hope people will believe it or not bother challenging it :
After some digging around, I cannot find any shred of evidence to confirm your claims there were trees growing in the arctic circle just 5000 years ago. Many tens of millions of years ago, yes, and CO2 levels were significantly higher during that period which isn't controversial. I'm not saying what you claimed is purely in your head (some dolt had to put it up there), but please provide at least an adequate source, otherwise you further lose credibility, something which you can ill-afford (although it doesn't seem to bother you that you talk BS).
As for fossil-fuel companies investing in green-tech - even they can see the writing on the wall. As for Al Gore, are the ice caps receding? They're still there, but satellite images suggest they are diminishing at an alarming rate. Seems that Al Gore may have misrepresented or mis-stated data, but he isn't a scientist - yet the anti-climate science peeps want to use this as some sort of "gotcha" to validate themselves (and do it a rather devious and disingenuous way. I call it weak sauce, as this link suggests. He has also previously stated that ice caps could melt in summertime within 50-70 years. Whether its 5 years or 50 years, we can see from data and images from space there should be urgency. But meh, we'll all be dead by then anyway? Who cares, lets just burn more fossils eh.
Check it out here »
On Wed 10 Nov at 8:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
I've seen it all already greenie. You'll never find what you're not looking for. I just mention things in case someone with an open mind should accidentally see them; and see through your over egging the supercilious expert cake as well. I would have believed the climate catastrophe religion myself if I hadn't grown up when there were popular encyclopaedias all over the place showing things that contradict the current ideology. I just remember them. It's perfectly obvious why the agenda is being pushed as well, the people pushing it stated it quite plainly years ago. Their books aren't stoner fodder so you'd never read them and you'd probably not understand them if you did. Let's face it, you don't even know how money is created and have never bothered to find out. The doors are rapidly closing, it'll soon be too late, and you're cheering it on.
On Wed 10 Nov at 9:49pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Do i need to look on the dark web or something?! I don't think my weakness is my inability to find your stories on the internet.
As for your mystical encyclopedias from the 17th century contradicting modern-day thinking - well colour me surprised.
Seriously dude, stop beclowning yourself and just share actual relevant sources and links. Its not that difficult. Then in typical fashion you revert back to "the money" conspiracy theories that keep you wide awake at night.
On Thu 11 Nov at 8:56pm Tom Pain wrote:
One would need a theory to explain your mysterious vocabulary metamorphosis. Not long ago you were a public school Retardian reading Hampstead clone. Suddenly you have mutated into an extra from a seventies american cop show. Slow down on da spliff bro.
On Fri 12 Nov at 5:40pm Green Sleeves wrote:
lol spliff. How dare you insinuate I go anywhere near nicotine. That drug is very dangerous, and kills hundreds of thousands of people a year. I like my blunts pure and release their vapours well below combustion.
You should be flattered I speak to you via some of my numerous alter-egos. But please don't let this distract you from providing those sources and pieces of evidence.
On Fri 12 Nov at 9:41pm Tom Pain wrote:
Science Direct. Can banks individually create money out of nothing?....empirical evidence. Richard A Werner. The ball is in your court, I bet you find a way to lose it.
On Sun 14 Nov at 1:33pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ok, my original response hasn't appeared, clearly its up for moderation and was a bit too edgy for the 3 people who view Lewes forum....
However, since then, I've been researching all about Richard A Werner. I now am obsessed with the creation of money, and all things money. Its now my life. It is at the centre of everything in the world, and its all I care about.
On another note, I tried looking for the evidence on "Science Direct" of evidence of a 5000 year old forest in the arctic circle, but failed to yield any results. Perhaps Sir Tom of Pain can better guide me to it. I'd not heard of Science Direct before TP mentioned it. It sounds like something Mike Ashley would be behind. Another billionaire of course....follow the moneyyyyy eh Tom?
On Sun 14 Nov at 5:54pm Tom Pain wrote:
So you've bottled it. Couldn't find a ready made answer from a fat chequer? Pity, you might have learned something.
On Sun 14 Nov at 6:58pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I couldn't find any evidence to support your claims there was forests in the arctic circle 5,000 years ago - via my own searches, or even through ones by your own vague suggestion. I politely request your source, and I'd be happy to read it. You don't seem very forthcoming about it, I'm guessing its not entirely credible, even if it does exist beyond your mind.
Its weird, I tried and did my bit, you do nothing but try to move on to something else entirely. Therefore I'm calling your claim as B.S until you, or someone else can provide a shred otherwise.
On Sun 14 Nov at 11:04pm Tom Pain wrote:
You referred to my money conspiracy theories. I offered proof and all you can do is look for something else on the site because you are too dumb to understand what is offered. If i find the arctic forest, you'd just mutter something about mike ashtray probably being behind it, whoever he is, in fact you're probably him ,maybe, possibly, just keep following the seance, peradventure, and move to the antarctic where actually, really, scientifically its getting colder, just look it up yourself this time.
On Mon 15 Nov at 11:07am Green Sleeves wrote:
I never enquired about the money conspiracy theories, you just squawk about it without any cue and at every opportunity. They dont interest me, nor does money in general. I am curious about the environment though and your 5000 year old arctic circle tree claims, something which despite my best efforts cant find anything to support your claims.
I am still waiting.
On Mon 15 Nov at 7:29pm Tom Pain wrote:
Just so. I have no money conspiracy theories, just provable facts. If you had an iota of genuine desire for social justice you would look into the financial root of all social injustice. As it is you are just another whining snowflake posing as a progressive whilst supporting the establishment. You're waiting alright and that's all you ever will do.
On Mon 15 Nov at 8:43pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You have no provable facts, which is why you've failed to produce them when asked time and time again on here, and not just from me. You are more interested in how money is created, and I'm sure its all relevant and exciting, but you made a claim that I was genuinely interested in - the so-called "fact" that there were trees growing in the arctic circle just 5,000 years ago. Thats a big revelation to me, and something which I've tried to establish even a shred of dubious info on this, but have come up with nothing. I have made a polite and simple request, show me the evidence to support that claim.
Its in your interest to do so, as if you provided compelling evidence on that, I might actually take interest in the other theories you pump out routinely. I'm sure you won't be forthcoming though with this information, as when you get called out, you tend to buckle and shout about "how money is created". Classic, but very transparent diversionary tactics. Just give me a lead on this stupid 5000 year old arctic circle tree theory, and you will gain some credibility, instead of being the loony guy in the back heckling about the 5g masts (again). One wild theory at a time eh?
On Tue 16 Nov at 8:46pm Tom Pain wrote:
1.6 million tonnes of plastic waste a day for your pseudopandemic. (Nat.Geographic)Greenie- "wear a mask stupid". Credibility! Forget the trees for the moment, I'll find it eventually. 5G ? Again? I don't recall ever mentioning it, have you been dreaming about me? To change the subject, hang on a sec, didn't you do that by mentioning my money conspiracy theories, just to get yet another conspiracy theory reference in? Do you know, I think you did, what a surprise, just like the 5G bluff. Dude, youre running on empty. However much you evade the subject, they keep on creating that credit out of nothing. It's like a hockey stick, the exponential curve of the wealth owned by the one percent, and getting steeper every day. All this locking down has boosted the transnational mega corporations so well and decimated small businesses to such an extent that coincidence theorists will have to work overtime!
On Tue 16 Nov at 11:02pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yeah yeah, the wealth gap and the proportion of control and influence of just a mere few have on every day living is outrageous, I get all that. I'm just wondering how this has anything to do with the lack of evidence about trees growing in the arctic circle 5000 years ago. Did George Soros bury it?
Its been a week. Daily requests, and you have yet to provide evidence of this claim. I think i'll stop asking now as a week is long enough, so you can relax. Your claim was more lies and distortions to fit your agenda and world-view. Lets change the record for the sake of this forum!
On Wed 17 Nov at 4:25pm Tom Pain wrote:
Funnily enough, I don't log everything I read for your benefit but I'm grateful for your consideration. I said you'd bottle it on the money front and you have, astroturf greenie.
On Wed 17 Nov at 5:28pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You're shadow boxing on that topic TP. I was only ever interested in your false claim on the arctic.
On Wed 17 Nov at 11:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
My claim about the arctic is not knowingly false or a lie as you charmingly put it. It is just one of many things things that make me laugh about anthropogenic, co2driven warming. I can understand your interest in it as I share it too. I also understand your reluctance to face the reality of our financial system, it's difficult to accept that things we believe in and benefit from are utterly corrupt, morally undefendable and a pillar of social inequity. It strikes me that you're totally in favour of it, I hope I'm wrong but the evidence suggests that I'm not. I think you know that the truth would be extremely unpalatable and denial is your only option.
On Thu 18 Nov at 9:33am Green Sleeves wrote:
Then prove your claim. With your proof, I will look more into the "money" side and the financial system. How do you expect people to take your claims seriously if you never provide sources and end up deflecting? Nobody is going to take the red pill without at least a tiny bit more than just hearsay.
On Thu 18 Nov at 11:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
Duh. See friday 10 november for inconravertible forensic proof of something few are aware of. Something else ? Well, open a can of Guinness on a hot summer day, unless it's been in the fridge bubbles foam out due to the co2. Open one straight from the cooler- none. Ergo- the warmer the liquid, the more co2 is released, no doubt other gases as well but it has been pumped with co2 to make it fizzy. Now think of the sea, the more the sun heats it the more co2 is released into the atmosphere. That suggests to me that higher atmospheric co2 FOLLOWS warming, not the other way round. Don't forget, all science derives from the observation of nature before it moves to the lab.
On Fri 19 Nov at 9:45am Green Sleeves wrote:
I just checked your 1 post from 10th November and there is no proof there at all, just you bleating about encyclopaedias from the past and how i wouldnt understand them. In other words you have no proof to share. We already knew that so i dont know why you tried wasting more time by pointing us towards a post with no evidence and just more baseless claims.
Your rudimentary understanding of science is funny though. You have completely dispelled the science communitys climate myth with your cute guiness analogy. Checkmate science, TP knows best LOL.
On Sat 20 Nov at 10:22pm Tom Pain wrote:
Oh yes, it was friday the 12th, obviously the friday evaded your eagle eye. I had an inkling you would ridicule my example, but hoped you might think about it before playing the macho man along with the big important men in white coats with their superior brains in their spotless laboratories. OK, thinkings not your thing, I can live with it. The money question does need a bit of abstract thought, even more difficult, so I'll let you skip that one too. It is amazing how you keep up your supercilious attitude whilst evading any opportunity to show that there is anything but gammon between your ears.
On Sat 20 Nov at 10:59pm Green Sleeves wrote:
"science direct"? I've already tried to look up your claims via that site, and couldn't find anything relating to it. You obviously saw it, so why don't you just add a link to it?
Nothing to ridicule, because you have produced no evidence of your claims.
On Mon 22 Nov at 11:52am Tom Pain wrote:
Fri.12 Nov.- SD, can banks individually etc.
On Mon 22 Nov at 12:05pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I wasn't ever enquiring about banks/money, you're just insisting and hoping the thread derails on to it. I have only ever been asking about information relating to your claim that there were trees growing in the arctic circle 5,000 years ago. Where is that?
I'm not trying to embarrass you, but if you are going to play stubborn about it, then I will keep on insisting you provide proof of your claim. The more you keep ranting on about banks, the sillier you look and the more obvious it looks like you're swerving from having to acknowledge you have no credible evidence on your arctic claim.
On Mon 22 Nov at 11:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
But, but, but, I've already said to forget that one and ignore it, its a minor point among the many that cast doubt on man made climate change. I've seen it and you haven't, big deal. I saw Led Zep at the Marquee Club and I didn't keep the ticket. It's equally unimportant, why don't you contact The IPCC and tell them about it, as undeniable proof of their theories. I actually thought you had an interest in finding something out, how naive of me.
On Tue 23 Nov at 8:20am Green Sleeves wrote:
Its a big deal if you make a claim that cant be even remotely substantiated. At least with your Led Zep claim, its fair to say they did actually perform at the Marquee Club. Even if you didnt keep the receipt, someone would and it is a googleble fact they appeared there. Your arctic claim was totally bogus. I guess this is your way of rowing back on the claim but you would garner more respect if you just said you misquoted or misspoke on it before. Your ego seems to have quite an impact on the way you conduct yourself on here. Let it go and i will.
On Tue 23 Nov at 10:17pm Tom Pain wrote:
OK how do the human caused CO2ists explain the medieval warm period and the later mini ice age?
On Thu 25 Nov at 8:35am Nevillman wrote:
Wikipedia says the main possible causes for both, according to scientists, are changing solar activity, volcanic activity and Ocean circulation.
On Thu 25 Nov at 9:35am mister_d wrote:
Nevilleman, with respect you seem determined to miss the point that Bonfire is a thing that's forced onto everyone in the town; everyone is forced to 'enjoy' the thing regardless of their own views or needs or just plain boredom, hence the irony.
That TP, he's a bit mad isn't he.
On Thu 25 Nov at 9:28pm Tom Pain wrote:
The sun is still in the sky, volcanoes are still erupting and the oceans are still circulating and the climate is still changing. What a catastrophe! Mr d, you ought to comment more on this forum; making insulting personal remarks when you have nothing better to say is virtually de rigeur and you seem eminently qualified.
On Fri 26 Nov at 8:55am Nevillman wrote:
Sounds like it's just me who is concerned about the sectarianism of bonfire and the no popery banner. Sorry I misinterpreted your post mister d. I have no sympathy for your argument expressed above. I don't think you are forced to participate just because you can hear the fireworks. If you as a Lewes resident aren't prepared to accept bonfire as being part of the overall make up of the town then too bad. You might as well complain about being forced to walk up school hill.