On Fri 12 Jul at 9:30am dave wrote:
Looks like XR have been at it again.
On Fri 12 Jul at 10:59am Nevillman wrote:
Brilliant. A big improvement on the original poster. Much more relevant and useful.
On Fri 12 Jul at 11:20pm Tom Pain wrote:
Have you seen the sea level rising? Let's get real for a moment. Watergate Lane, you know where that is? Why is it called that? Find out about a bit of real history and then tell me the sea is rising .WATER gate. Got it? Maybe it means something, not like like the prissy names they give streets these days. It's a sign, yes a street sign that actually meant something real ,all you have to do is find out what,not that I think you will. How could you face your friends as a denier? Ooh,howwid.
On Sat 13 Jul at 8:24am Stephen Watson wrote:
There's no doubt sea levels are rising - 3mm per year recently, but expected to accelerate because of rising sea temperatures (a) expands the water in the ocean (b) melts the ice caps. You see, most of the extra heat the planet's absorbing is going into the oceans, otherwise air temperatures would be MUCH hotter than they are now. It's true the Ouse used to be an estuary up to Lewes in early medieval times, but since then its's been drained and embanked, plus sediment deposition will likely have raised the land area. Current projections on a business as usual basis suggest a 2m rise by end of century, but the projections themselves have been rising and there is much uncertainty, especially on the upside.
On Sat 13 Jul at 12:11pm Blatant Liar wrote:
I bought one of those LED light bulbs the other day
Just sayin Ď
On Sun 14 Jul at 9:20am Tom Pain wrote:
Current projections!! None of the past projections have come true. The polar ice cap has not melted as predicted. Computer models are programmed with data that must be incomplete because none of the results have materialised in the physical world, none of them. Silt in the river will be deposited lower down it's course necessitating banking; it's not magically distributed all over the valley. The south of Britain is sinking due to the north rising due to rebound from the loss of the weight of the ice from the last ice age and the sea has not inundated us yet ( this scientific fact surprised me too). There is of course the sun to be taken into account. It has cycles of activity and we are approaching the Maunder minimum, look that one up and hope for more CO2 to help crop growth in very difficult circumstances.
On Mon 15 Jul at 9:13am Nevillman wrote:
Tom pain. Who predicted that the polar ice caps would have melted by now? They are melting at an alarming and increasing pace. What has your statement on silt in rivers got to do with it? The south of Great Britain is slowly sinking which will exacerbate the effects of the sea levels rising in due course. We cannot predict the long term effect the sun will have on climate. Lots of computer projections have come true and are still unfolding. The evidence that man created climate change is having an effect on the environment and will increasingly do so is overwhelming. It's hard to make out exactly what you are saying but you appear to refuting this. Have you got some proper evidence for this?
On Mon 15 Jul at 1:54pm Buzzard wrote:
He's been reading some of the many climate change denialist websites funded by megadollops of oil money.
On Mon 15 Jul at 11:00pm Tom Pain wrote:
I can't remember Nev, but it was all over the news when big oil Al Gore was bringing out his films to push his carbon credit scam. Silt was a reply to Steven W.above. Buzz, big oil is funded by big money and it funds both sides of anything they can turn a profit on like wars for instance. Why do you think the Rockefellers fund environment groups? They play both sides against the middle looking for the the result known only to themselves. Thesis v antithesis results in the synthesis - it's called the dialectic. That's how they work. Fascism against communism,ww2 ends eventually in the EU ? Extinction rebellion against the government ends in what the establishment wants - austerity. Me arguing with you results in division, someone else conquers ,our eyes are not on the ball. That's the way the long game works.
On Tue 16 Jul at 8:24am David Stanley wrote:
It's true, oil companies are big investors in solar. The countries with the most oil are also investing heavily in solar. Ironically,mining for lithium and other mineral deposits essential to solar and electric car batteries is causing deforestation and environmental damage as well as resource wars and destroying indigenous people's rights to their lands. Solar panels need replacing eventually and they will be recycled in the same way as our rubbish is now,causing harm to poor people and the environment.
On Tue 16 Jul at 10:13am Nevillman wrote:
I don't know who you think is going to be impressed by your diatribe on the dialectic Tom pain but I am not. Climate change is either happening or not and most of the evidence suggests that man is doing it and it is happening. You are following a classic deniers tactic of attempting to show confusion and doubt by going on about something else.
On Tue 16 Jul at 10:27am Buzzard wrote:
Tom, austerity is about inequality. Read any green economist you like, you'll find they alll want a more equal and just society, but one that lives within its means. I recommend Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth.
On Wed 17 Jul at 11:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
What happened to my post made last night? Is there a curfew from 11 pm? What are the rules with this forum? Just tell me and I'll go along with them.
On Thu 18 Jul at 10:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
Once more onto the beach dear fiends.... Nev, I'm not trying to impress or confuse, just saying what I believe, and what I disbelieve. The grand solar minimum is about to happen again. If it's true and I think it maybe, it's said to be a lull in solar activity which manifests on earth as big disruptions of weather patterns every 400 years. Weather of mass destruction!! I know, we've heard it all before. There's a history of the Priestly Caste using things like eclipses to throw a guilt trip on us ignorant masses to increase their revenue and power, right? Nothing better than to blame the climate changes that are going to happen on us. Buzz, I think it highly unlikely that the billionaires that rule us are likely to have the slightest interest in equality. In fact I'm sure they invented the absurd concept (fancy going into the ring with the heavyweight champ). I'll bet that Kate Rayworth doesn't know how money is created (they don't teach that to economics students) or if she does she's keeping it to herself. I wonder if this will get posted, here's hoping!
On Fri 19 Jul at 1:22pm Nevillman wrote:
Tom, I really wouldn't want to discourage you or anyone from contributing to this site as it is the last site left in Lewes which the moderator does not see as their personal site to be censored as they wish. However, much as your posts provide me with some entertainment, I should tell you they come over as a series of points unconnected to each other or the subject under discussion. Do you know what many scientists have said about climate change? You probably see yourself as a bit of maverick, unafraid of standing out from the crowd and assess the evidence objectively. Like most people you have formed an opinion based on your emotional gut feeling and now look for evidence to support it. This is not hard to find on the internet. You have become an accomplice of the oil interests who are the ones with the vested interest in denying that man made climate change is happening. I'm sorry if this comes over as a personal attack Tom. It is an attack on your position rather than you.
On Sat 20 Jul at 9:17am Tom Pain wrote:
Not so Nev. Big Oil is the straw man, false opposition in this case. As I and many others have tediously repeated, big oil is invested in alternative energy and the climate protest industry. What do you think about the grand solar minimum,or the Maunder minimum as the last one was called? Perhaps you can get some alternative entertainment out of that.
On Sat 20 Jul at 1:55pm Nevillman wrote:
Examining the activity of the sun and assessing its influence on the earth's climate may well provide entertainment to some Tom but appears to me to be a distraction from the main point of examining the effect that man has had on the climate by burning fossil fuels and releasing the carbon. If you are suggesting that oil interests would be equally happy to have people stop using oil and use alternative energy instead, then I don't believe you and would like to see more evidence for it than some nut job who writes an article on it on the internet.