Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

The Tom Pain Genuine Diploma

1
 
On 2 Jan 2023 at 11:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
This is awarded for the biggest fiddle in the world and it goes to Black Rock, the multi-trillion wealth fund. They introduced a phony "green" investment classification to penalise investors in non carbon neutral businesses. This has made investment in hydrocarbon exploration impossible for western firms. Has it stopped it? Of course not! It is being continued by Chinese corporations not subjected to this rule and guess who is heavily investing in them? I don't need to say it, but their initials are BR, and I'm not talking British Rail.
3
 
On 3 Jan 2023 at 1:37pm SHS-2 wrote:
Clearly an FT reader TP. We all know ESG is just a marketing tool and carbon neutrality just transfer of money and a coat of gloss.
6
 
On 3 Jan 2023 at 2:07pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I thought you would have been more outraged about Andrew "Morpheous" Tates arrest by the Matrix.
7
 
On 3 Jan 2023 at 2:16pm Nevillman wrote:
Black rock are investment managers rather than a wealth fund. As SHS says, the green investment classification is essentially a marketing tool. Whether black rock invest in non carbon neutral businesses or not, I don't see how they can possibly be preventing other investment managers or businesses investing in hydrocarbon exploration and I'm sure numerous Chinese and Western businesses still are, even if many do regard it as investing in what will soon hopefully be redundant energy.
Black rock seem to be a conspiracy theorists dream. The right attacks them for their 'woke' stance and siding with the Chinese enemy. The left attacks them for hypocrisy and naked capitalism.
They must make the front page of whatever conspiracy theorist sites there are and push climate change scepticism and the moon landings to the inside pages.
Meanwhile, black rock continues to make millions for the people investing through them and the owners of it presumably.
3
 
On 3 Jan 2023 at 10:44pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well shs2, it seems that most people don't know that the green label is just a marketing tool. Our government seems to believe in going carbon neutral subsidising environmentally harmful wind turbines and solar panels that need diesel back up. They also appear to be promising climate reparations for the industrial revolution to places who are using the tech now it's been moved there from here when it rains! I've never read the FT and I'm too old to learn the lingo and translate it. Give up the conspiracy bilge nev, people will definitely start believing that I've addled your brain. And sleevie...who? what? stop reading the beano.
1
 
On 4 Jan 2023 at 2:35pm Nevillman wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between using a green label as a marketing tool like black rock may be doing and things that will actually help the environment like wind turbines and solar panels which although not perfect should lead in the long run in a decline in the use of fossil fuel and therefore help reduce climate change.
I realise you are trying to make the point that there is not a climate change issue Tom but I side with the opinion of the majority of scientists allied to my own analysis of the data and think it is you who has the problem with 'conspiracy bilge'. You have in actual fact addled my brain anyway.
 
 
On 5 Jan 2023 at 8:01pm Tom Pain wrote:
I heard about a dodgy anti-diploma to help you get a real one! A while back someone was telling me how much the test cost to be diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome. It struck me as rather expensive but it seems the test for dyslexia is quite high. What do you know?! If you get the kid diagnosed as dyslexic, he gets extra time to do his exams. I bet this little wrinkle has helped a lot of well off (financially, not intellectually) kids over the years. Even some of the medical profession would appear to be open to "squaring" as they say.
3
 
On 6 Jan 2023 at 11:26am Green Sleeves wrote:
Oh dear....
1
 
On 10 Jan 2023 at 10:22pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well nev, the theory about the majority of scientists has been well and truly debunked, but we'll let that pass as the BBC would never cover it anyway. I still haven't seen a theory that explains the medieval warm period when houses were built in northern Europe without chimneys because it was so warm. Or the little ice age when it was damned chilly, other than climate is cyclical probably due to solar cycles. As for the data; historical evidence from newspapers of the last 300 years shows a telling discrepancy with the latest modelled/tampered figures which also vary from the information produced by the same organisations in the past. Why should this be? My guess is that it is political meddling but that suggests that politicians might be prone to being economical with the truth which then suggests they conspire together which is impossibly laughable. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that climate scientists were responsible for the leaked "climategate" emails which, coincidentally did feature some references to that problematical warm period. Oh dear!
4
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 9:24am pedant wrote:
'Houses in medieval Europe built without Chimneys because it was too warm"??? So I guess they cooked their food in the microwave or maybe they just ate salads. The Medieval warm period lasted from around 950 to 1250. The earliest examples of chimneys on houses are from around 1200 with a few earlier examples on castles from the 12th century. The little ice age and medieval warm period were regional variations not global.
3
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 2:10pm Green Sleeves wrote:
"I still havent seen a theory to explain...." - just about sums you up TP. Youre either not looking in the right places and predominantly exposed to climate change sceptics peddling their agenda, or just willfully ignorant. WHAT ABOUT THE LACK OF CHIMNEYS?!? checkmate climate change suckers!!
 
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 3:55pm Tom Pain wrote:
They used their gas barbies all over the world pedant. As usual,sleevie- all mouth, no trouser. What is it about the slightest deviation from regulation opinions that annoys you so. I'm still intrigued by the warm beer going flat mystery. Is it that- the warmer the weather is, the quicker the co2 goes into the atmosphere OR- the co2 creeping out of the beer like a poisonous snake causing the warming in the atmosphere with dire consequences for the beer and humanity.
2
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 4:43pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I dont usually mind people that occasionally deviate from regular opinions....but conspiracy theorists irk me. Its tiring hearing the same old debunked claims from bad actors for attention. They usually lack any credibility and known for relaying BS.
4
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 5:17pm pedant wrote:
Warm beer going flat? No mystery there.
1
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 11:27pm Tom Pain wrote:
Exactly, pedant- the warming produces the flatness.... No hang on 537% of scientists agree that flatness causes the warming, I'll just have to go along to get along. For goodness sake, sancho, I don't mind people being inexact but when the unspecific is generalised with amorphous cliches based on the loose approximations of the nevill green amateur psychology club, I get a vaguely indefinite but not completely imprecise feeling that the writer is covertly attempting to insinuate a disapprobation. But then again, it's probably just the result of too much spliff.
1
 
On 11 Jan 2023 at 11:32pm Green Sleeves wrote:
lol @ "too much spliff". You really are a total "dope".

2
 
On 12 Jan 2023 at 8:18am pedant wrote:
TP I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. You're either confused or lack some understanding of basic science.
 
 
On 12 Jan 2023 at 10:43am Tom Pain wrote:
You're right pedant, after a sleepless night of feverish research I discovered that there was no mini ice age further south AND here's the killer----even no maxi ice ages whatsoever, none. More white exceptionalism I suppose, it's terrible how the climate has no regard for diversity. Make the most of it sleevie- with a central bank digital currency: how will you get hold of the stuff?
2
 
On 12 Jan 2023 at 1:41pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You think drug dealers only deal with cash transactions? I guess its been a while for you....
 
 
On 12 Jan 2023 at 11:12pm Tom Pain wrote:
P... To put it country simple, the warmer the sea/beer gets the more CO2 is released. There was no ice age in the tropics because it's hotter there. I can live with you being a pedant, I know I'm frivolous but there's no need to be obtuse. Pancho- your body's your own ,I'm broad minded and it's none of my business.
2
 
On 13 Jan 2023 at 8:42am pedant wrote:
"No ice age in the tropics because it's hotter there". What a laugh. I grant you that the southern hemisphere doesn't see the same ice sheet fluctuations but this is down to distribution of land mass. The planet does cycle through cool and warm periods but the current concern is the rapid increase in global temperatures. I'm not sure, with the evidence available, why anyone would doubt that. If you don't believe it's caused by human intervention you've still admitted that global temperatures are rising and that should still be a concern.
As for the warm beer analogy are you implying that the rise in CO2 is just coming from the sea? Where's all that carbon going that we've released from burning fossil fuels?
 
 
On 13 Jan 2023 at 11:28am Tom Pain wrote:
Yes temperatures are rising but as we are in an inter glacial period- they will until we start heading for the next ice age. No, I don't think all co2 comes from the sea, I might as well ask if you think it's all man made. Do you think Greenland got it's name because the Vikings were colour blind and farmed in the snow? 15 years ago I may well have not been skeptical about all this either but internet access and retirement enabled me to read far more widely than before. It's surprising what no TV or newspapers does to clear the mind as well.
6
 
On 13 Jan 2023 at 12:23pm pedant wrote:
You think Greenland was swathes of lush green fields in the 10th century? You might want to reconsider believing everything you read on the internet.
5
 
On 13 Jan 2023 at 2:00pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom Pain is actually adorable. DOWN WITH THE NWO!!
1
 
On 13 Jan 2023 at 11:32pm Tom Pain wrote:
Oh dear, not that gambit again.How tiresome, there's a word for it and it's not pedantic but I can't think of it at the moment. And sleevie, the diploma's on it's way.
2
 
On 14 Jan 2023 at 11:06am Nevillman wrote:
I have been researching the arguments that support the arguments of those that say either that climate change is not happening or that it is not caused by human actions as I want to gain the Tom Pain Genuine Diploma. It is important to note that although it appears to be a polarised debate with each 'side' believing the same arguments, there are a wide range of different views from adherents of both broad viewpoint who I will label as believers and sceptics for simplicity. Some of the views of both sides sound quite extreme and appear to be quite easily rejected which does tarnish the overall argument of both sides and is often used so, not the least on this forum.
There does seem to be an increasing number of sceptics who now believe that the climate is changing. The main conflict seems to be over the extent to which it is man made or part of the natural pattern of changing climate due to sun activity, volcanic activity, oceanic activity etc.
I have genuinely looked at all arguments as objectively as I could Tom. I would like to believe that everything will be fine, there is no problem in store for future Nevill residents. This is in conflict with the overwhelming human urge to fear the worst. It was after all, the early human who feared danger behind every rock who ended up passing their genes on generally.
I'm sorry Tom, as I read it, the arguments saying that the climate is changing solely because of natural reasons only don't stack up. The arguments for the huge unnatural release of carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution being the primary (if not the main) cause do make scientific sense to me.
Can you suggest any sites I can go to that refute this please.
 
 
On 14 Jan 2023 at 9:45pm Tom Pain wrote:
That sounds reasonable nev. I've often said- realclimatescience.com I find it easy to understand and he has a very dry sense of humour which I appreciate.
4
 
On 15 Jan 2023 at 8:59am Pedant wrote:
...and there we have it the classic go to website for the conspiracy theorist. The home of Tony Heller. The man who has on several occasions had to publicly withdrawn false claims made on the internet. The man who thought that rather than take accurate measurements of a glacier he could just count the pixels on a low res overhead image. You're going to need more than that TP.
1
 
On 16 Jan 2023 at 8:36am Nevillman wrote:
Some interesting pieces on your recommended website Tom. There were many articles that debunked some of the sensational claims by journalists from the past about forthcoming climate catastrophe and many about the bias of scientists. These sounded like they were saying there was a conspiracy of scientists but the site was careful to avoid the term conspiracy.
I couldn't find anything that challenged the scientific view on the effect of man made co2 on the atmosphere. The general view of co2 was that it was benign and natural, overlooking the fact that unprecedented quantities had suddenly been released into the atmosphere and that this would have some effect. I was looking for some challenge to this but couldn't find it. Please tell me if there is somewhere I can click for this.
2
 
On 16 Jan 2023 at 9:11am Nevillman wrote:
The realclimatescience website had an article entitled the five top arguments against climate alarmism'. The main points were as follows:-
-there is no evidence that extreme climate is increasing
-climate alarmism'is based on the view of a small number of scientists. It is a myth that 97% of scientists agree
-academics have been making apocalyptic predictions for decades
-climate alarmism'is based on graphs and models that emanate from a small number of people
-the most important argument against climate alarmism'is that the proposed solutions are unworkable, dangerous and useless.
I have tried to summarise the points as accurately as I could. Let me know any misrepresentations please Tom.
I don't find the arguments very compelling. I agree with the first and third points to some extent which tells us a lot about human nature and journalism but not the others and aside from highlighting the odd rogue scientist doesn't actually provide any evidence. It is relying on the view that there is a conspiracy of scientists.
We can't know if the last point is right but it does fit neatly with the desire that big oil and big business has for maintaining the status quo.
Humans are extremely ingenious and I hope that technology can find a way to continue to allow us to enjoy the huge improvements in living standards around the world without harming the planet and longer term future of it.
 
 
On 16 Jan 2023 at 10:48am Tom Pain wrote:
Firstly, the constant mention of "conspiracy" is rather tedious, are you trying to suggest something? The theory that "big oil" is conspiring to destroy the world for profit, perhaps? Quite possibly. That the media conspires to sell copy by exaggerating any threat, be it war, weapons of mass destruction or merely inclement weather? Doubtless! Having got that off my chest, I'll return to your questions later and try not to insinuate that your constant repetition of a certain word connives to give a negative impression of my opinion.
3
 
On 16 Jan 2023 at 12:35pm Nevillman wrote:
I agree with you about the use of the c word as it is potentially a passive aggressive way of trying to subvert an argument and I can see how tedious and frustrating it is to have your views dismissed by it's use. It's interesting that the website avoids it and calls it the c word. The fact remains that much of their argument relies on believing that there is an agreement among scientists to cook the books. This could be regarded as a conspiracy.
The same applies to adherents of other beliefs that go against conventional beliefs like the moon landings, 911, chemtrails, JFK etc. They all rely on believing that there is a group of people who conspire to do something. They all get lumped together as conspiracy theories but it is interesting how many people who believe in one of them, also believe in several others as well which makes it even easier to lump them together.
I didn't know I'd asked any questions but I look forward to your answers and your considered view on my posts Tom leaving aside the conspiracy theory aspect of it.
1
 
On 16 Jan 2023 at 6:42pm Green Sleeves wrote:
At least hes not a flat earth conspiracy theorist. But i do understand that labelling someone as a conspiracy theorist is unhelpful as they will have heard that time again, and the people they look up to and deem as credible sources will probably say stuff like "those part of the matrix will make you doubt yourself and call you a conspiracy theorist", its textbook 101 for any leader of a cult community. Take the red pill.
 
 
On 16 Jan 2023 at 8:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
I don't think there's a conspiracy between scientists to cook the books. I've been reading a book about Darwin's Origin of Species and the various modifications that dominated the scientific consensus on the subject since then. Basically- if you didn't go along with the latest thing, you were out of the loop, persona non grata, empty your desk,ta ta. Climate science is just as impossible to prove as the origin and people are still as hierarchical, peer pressure is as powerful as it always was. It's all theory anyway, definitely not provable science. As for the top arguements: isn't that a summary with no details? I'm more interested in seeing the older graphs and newspaper cuttings which show that tampering is going on and porkies being told- the evidence is all there to be seen. The status quo is untouched by the fortunes of big oil, the big money diversifies in whatever direction they lead the market. It's going into what's called renewables, though whether or not they are remains to be seen. The Rockefellers are ostensibly moving that way. They had to split up their virtual oil monopoly ages ago because of anti monopoly laws in the US but it was only on paper. Power never lets go, just grasps more. I have no doubt that they are invested in Chinaoil, untraceably through investment funds and shell companies offshore. They support environmental groups too... when they want to get rid of competitors..
3
 
On 17 Jan 2023 at 8:44am Nevillman wrote:
The website you recommend makes many accusations of scientists conspiring to cook the books. Look again.
The essence of science is that science is falsifiable with evidence. If someone came along with a better theory than Darwin to explain the origin of species it would take over as the dominant theory until that was replaced by a better theory. That is why Darwinism is science but creationism is not as it is just about faith.
Of course there are careers, hierarchies, powerful interests at play in the short run but over time, the scientific theory that is best able to withstand attempts to falsify it will predominate. If the sceptics are able to come up with enough evidence to falsify the dominant theory of climate warning then they will win. Unfortunately they don't and rely on accusations of scientists conspiring. There are enough rich and powerful people with interest in disproving climate science to ensure that scientists willing to look for this evidence are not in short supply.
1
 
On 17 Jan 2023 at 8:04pm Tom Pain wrote:
Not with the barrage of propaganda constantly pouring out of the media. Even the district council pamphlet I refer to in the snow and ice thread. Have you wondered how the British Isles could cope with zero carbon, not to mention rewilding? No industry, drastically reduced farming, no shipping, what are you going to eat? Oh yes- bugs. What do you think of shs's comment about esg being about wealth transfer. I think he's right, only massive corporations can afford the changes- or the backhanders to the regulators.
2
 
On 17 Jan 2023 at 8:18pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Why are the consp.....climate deniers so anti-bugs as a food source. Its clearly an emerging source of food and protein for human consumption and vastly less intensive, polluting and expensive than mammal agriculture. Plus if we are happy eating the entrails of various animals, whats so crazy or icky about eating bugs? Pretty sure humanity have consumed bugs for hundreds of thousands of years.


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


 

Railway Land Bridge 100:132
Railway Land Bridge

The Attract Group's deep dive into Lean Product Development provides an essential roadmap for entrepreneurs eager to streamline... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Oscar Wilde