On Mon 8 Feb at 6:12pm Cedric wrote:
With the increase of scams recently I thought it would be useful to have a thread highlighting them.
The attached link provides a few of them but there are many, many more becoming apparent on a regular basis.
Perhaps others might be able to add to this list to help us all to recognise them should we be targeted.
Check it out here »
On Mon 8 Feb at 7:51pm Tom Pain wrote:
I had a look and all of them describe what the government are doing. As a cheerful aside, did you know that most of the big European pharmaceutical companies were part of the IG Farben group that ran Auschwitz and other concentration camps? They split the combine up after the war and slapped the directors wrists and most of them went back to their jobs after a couple of years inside.
On Mon 8 Feb at 9:06pm David Stanley wrote:
Tom, have you thought of making youtube videos? You could put your ideas on there and people tend to be quite receptive to your sort of stuff, particularly if you have an eccentric delivery. Might even make some pocket money eventually.
On Mon 8 Feb at 11:57pm Tom Pain wrote:
If I thought of making a YouTube video I wouldn't think of a subject. If I thought of a subject I would lose it thinking about making a video. Ca va. You see I don't even know what language is going to come out. I have taken to heart what you said about on line demeanour although sometimes when under duress I may falter in my resolve. This is a snake pit after all.
On Tue 9 Feb at 9:59am Green Sleeves wrote:
You should become a youtuber. Its quite profitable peddling conspiracy theories often lapped up by the alt-right. You can e-beg your subscribers to keep your channel running via Patreon donations and live stream "superchats", as they WILL be stupid enough to donate. QAnon needs its successors.
Just don't give in to George Soros' army of liberal new order globalist metropolitan elites.....or whatever cliched word salad you enjoy.
On Tue 9 Feb at 2:04pm Tom Pain wrote:
Oh greenie, why don't you take your own advice and ignore me? I can't even have a conversation with David without your I'll mannered intrusion. Point your stagnant conspiracy mania at Trumpanon Quorosicke or whatever rubbish you can cleverly!! Fakecheck. Try and wash your grubby little fantasies about me out of your mind, go for a walk, that cold air is quite exhilarating. Get in touch with nature not that second hand "green" twaddle.
On Tue 9 Feb at 2:22pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I ignore you most of the time, I just was at a loose end and thought I'd troll a vulnerable idiot for another muddled response.
Thanks for reminding me to stock up on some more natural herbs.
On Thu 11 Feb at 11:38pm Tom Pain wrote:
On the subject of scams, I've just been watching a video from the early seventies about the coming Ice Age. Having been out today, I'm inclined to believe it. However I'm reassured by current reports that this cold is due to the effects of global warming. But, OH NO the same diagrams used to prove it were used 50 years ago to prove the opposite. It's so confusing, what should I buy for my Spring wardrobe this year? I suppose the lockdown solves that question- nothing! But that only gives rise to further perplexity: why are we confined to quarters when the toll for respiratory complaints is not that abnormal? Turn on your TV, then you'll know. Actually,I'll pass on that, I've seen it all too many times before.
On Sat 20 Feb at 9:55pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yeah, it was pretty mild today, but because it was cold last week....we can immediately discount anything scientists have claimed since, because its important to focus on our ill-informed perspective of climate science and limited data of a small area in a very very small time frame.
On Mon 22 Feb at 3:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well the same diagrams showing how global cooling was happening from fifty years ago now being used to prove the opposite could make someone curious. Fifty years is short span of time when you consider the thousands of years it's been warming since the last Ice age. And it all happened without our help!
On Tue 23 Feb at 8:33am Green Sleeves wrote:
You have done that one before. Broken record springs to mind as it was debunked.
"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect."
On Tue 23 Feb at 11:58pm Tom Pain wrote:
You obviously didn't read any of the scientific reports at the time, I did, or at least coverage in the serious press. I don't recall any allusion to aerosols being responsible or orbital forcing, whatever that is. Anyone can read the articles preserved on the internet if they want to. I doubt they will, it's so much more pleasant to go along with crowd than face their ignorant disapproval.
Embarrassingly, I was a real self righteous save the worlder in those days. It's rather depressing to see the same attitude go mainstream and people who should have got it out of their system when they had an excuse for it revelling in tarnished glory. The green movement was taken over by the globalists and now they are using it for their own ends. You might notice that the World Bank are big players, those who made their fortune on the industrial rape of the world are now going to save it!
On Wed 24 Feb at 9:04am Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL @ TP, you read no scientific reports "at the time", you read a few bogus articles that are now being held in high esteem by anti-science, right-wing ghouls like Lou Dobbs of Fox News, the late (may he rest in pieces) insane shock jock Rush Limbaugh and shameful southern state US republican senators who continue to deny climate change (with the backing of their oil company donors). This had no credible overwhelming consensus, even back then. You take some isolated non-credible sources and run wild with them, on almost every topic it seems. Lets quote some examples, just to see the kind of crowd you are among in your embarrassing fringe views :
"Lou Dobbs on Fox News: "This cycle of science… if we go back to 1970, the fear then was global cooling. "
Rush Limbaugh: "I call [global warming] a hoax… A 1975 Newsweek cover was gonna talk about the ice age coming. So they're really confused how to play it."
Sean Hannity on Fox News: "If you go back to Time Magazine, they actually were proclaiming the next ice age is coming, now it's become global warming… How do you believe the same people that were predicting just a couple decades ago that the new ice age is coming?"
Those same people are also "anti-globalists" and peddle the same kind of conspiracy theories as you do. Blimey, name me a wacky conspiracy theory that Rush Limbaugh didn't get behind. You have beclowned yourself once again Tom, and doubling down on this kind of stuff just makes you part of the circus they are all part of.
Is this even fun for you? Being ridiculed and debunked on such a regular basis? Is this the kind of attention you feel helps you get through the day?
On Wed 24 Feb at 8:01pm Tom Pain wrote:
Greenie, I read (past tense) these articles in the seventies. I haven't a clue who these far right people you follow so slavish!y even are. And I don't give a damn what they say. As usual you don't read my posts,just hurl your hackneyed insults with your usual bigoted blindness. You only ridicule your own opinions, which you attribute to me in some peculiar attempt to associate me with them. So globalisation is a conspiracy theory eh? I expect the Rockefeller's Tri lateral Commission is as well then. Well they've made their ambitions pretty clear in their writings,but don't read them,even if Starmer is a member. It would put your head in a spin. Big Oil Rockefeller the left wing environmentalist world government activist!.... Just stick to trump, goodness who are you going to hate now.?
On Wed 24 Feb at 8:40pm Green Sleeves wrote:
The articles were not based on scientific consensus. You keep deferring to bogus and debunked articles from memory of over 40 years ago. They aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of people, let alone scientists.
My point about who takes these old claims seriously to this day are the kinds of people one should feel uncomfortable finding agreement with. Sure, there is always that old saying of a broken clock being right twice a day, but for 23 hours and 58 minutes it's wrong. This applies to conspiracy nutjobs like David Icke....who without even looking it up im sure he agrees with you, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump and flat earthers with climate change denial. They have zero credibility, you're just ranting and raving for the sake of being an edge lord and somehow a major critical thinker. Are you actually that old lady who walks around Lewes draped in the England flag wearing a crash helmet?
On Thu 25 Feb at 11:33pm Tom Pain wrote:
Nobody takes those old claims seriously, but you take the new ones desperately seriously. They didn't have consensus in those days, it was called conformity, they didn't have scientists, just boffins blowing up their garden sheds and emerging covered in soot.
Are you the only person who reads Icke? Probably. I wouldn't waste your time, mind you it might be more amusing than your books about Prince Charles. I see Trump's back in the bogey man department. Zero credibility, old chap, safe pair of hands,stout fellow, credit to the regiment, flat earth- level playing field, don't forget your gas mask and keep tuned to the BBC
On Fri 26 Feb at 10:48am Green Sleeves wrote:
"They didn't have scientists in those days....." - oh yes, scientists only came into existence in around 1992 when it became an officially recognised profession
Oh, and these aren't "new" claims per se, they were more mainstream than your "global cooling" ones, hence why the latter was just conjecture, and now exploited by the kinds of people you'd shudder to be in the same postcode as, let alone find agreement with.
On Sun 28 Feb at 7:28pm Tom Pain wrote:
Yes conjecture, disproved by the fact that it didn't come true. But now the Edgelord Bozos have a new baby - uncontrollable warming. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't someone talking about the sky falling and crying wolf just recently? Who could it have been?. Climate alarmism has been a staple of, um, alarmists since Geoffrey of Tours that I know of and doubtless since talking was invented. Actually the Seine and the Loire did dry up in those days and thousands died of the heat. How did the CO2 manage it? Obviously men were real men in those days and CO2 was real CO2 not the cissy stuff we've got.
On Mon 1 Mar at 11:37pm IDM wrote:
Hard luck Cedric. An honest attempt to found a helpful thread almost immediately taken off-thread by TP. I admit that I have not read all the posts that have followed - but unless I went to the wrong link, very little of that referred to the Government (UK or USA), but to private ne'er do wells.
On Tue 2 Mar at 9:15am Tom Pain wrote:
The government acts for private ne'er-do-goods who do very well financially, by endorsing their massive scams for a cut in the action. Aside, not having read the posts, on what do you base your premise?
On Wed 3 Mar at 11:07pm IDM wrote:
Merely looking at the first two posts is enough for the comment I made.
Having scrolled a bit further, I don't really see how a dispute among scientists about global warming/cooling is a scam. It does not financially disadvantage citizens; and even if it did (eg I must buy more thermal underwear), the cash would not go to the scientists.
On Sun 7 Mar at 11:22pm Tom Pain wrote:
Financial disadvantage - Conventional fuel prices massively increased to subsidise alternatives.
Note- High pressure in winter causes cold weather and no wind = no power from wind turbines=no electricity for heating = ill health. Just when you need it most, it's not there. Opposites apply in summer.
Politicians can be bought for a song....so can scientists. (repeat anon.)
On Mon 8 Mar at 11:18pm IDM wrote:
I'm not sure I follow the latest post TP, with the reference to seasons. They aren't the same as global warming/cooling are they? I still wouldn't call your longer chains scams in the normal sense. It's more like "Hello, it's Professor Bloggs of the Seasons Abolitionist Movement. To help our important work, which will benefit you immensely, please supply you account details and PIN".
On Tue 9 Mar at 12:26pm Tom Pain wrote:
" still wouldn't call your longer chains scams in the normal sense" ???? No wonder you can't follow me, we speak different languages.