And yet you argue all over this forum that laws and regulations are required to force people to do what you think is best for all manner of absurd reasons, including climate scaremongering...Originally Posted by Húrin
Anarchists, Socialist, Communists, Greens. They're all the same.
There is something similar in Tipperary:
The Village - Building Sustainable Community - Home
So you are happy with whatever form of government does your bidding and which will implement your dictates.
You are missing a real career opportunity. I'm sure there must be some South American banana republic simply crying out for a megalomaniac dictator such as you aspire to be
Hurin, though misguided, I believe you mean well.
The New Scientist magazine has backtracked on its role in spreading many of the fraudulent lies concerning AGW.
Why on earth would anybody have any trust in the integrity of such a scientific tabloid rag as the New Scientist.?
Hope you dont mind Im enclosing a pic of
[SIZE="3"]New Scientists next front issue cover[/SIZE]
nbv
Please give us an example of a publication with integrity
Regards, Pat Gill
I have spoken to a lot of people involved in Transition initiatives all over Ireland and in some parts of England too. Except in the most successful places (e.g. Totnes), one thing that all of them say is that they feel that "getting it off the ground" is exceptionally difficult where they live!
With a lot of things like this, the turnout at meetings is small but then when you have an event a lot of people come, if it's at a convenient time. I don't think there's a lack of interest. I think people are often just too budy to get as involved as they would like.
The Celtic Tiger was not substantially different to booms that England experienced before, but I think that the Irish psyche is much more fatalistic than the English one - Brits see themselves as potentially powerful moral agents in society. But historically the traditional skill base is just as present in Ireland as in England.
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hardly. It's the opposite of survivalism.
That's not true either. They don't advocate a "nothing in, nothing out" economy. They just advocate local production of what can be sensibly produced locally, and yet agree that there will always be trade and that some places will specialise in producing goods for other settlements.They're appropriate for a collapse of modern economic life
It would be quite appropriate I agree to incorporate community defence into their initiatives, but there are laws against stockpiling weapons.but such a collapse in a modern country like England is going to be so ruddy awful that it might well be more appropriate for Transition Towns to cut to the chase and start drilling their pikemen in the main square.
The aim appears indeed to be to make the thing virally spread to many towns, which it has done already.So, as a model that can be scaled up and connected together, they're a good thing, although there will be features that won't scale or connect - but as a model to be followed in isolation by individual towns, they're not really such a good thing.
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I don't understand. I start a thread that advocates the decentralising of political and economic power. Yet you interpret this to mean that I advocate dictatorship.
Could it be that you're trolling?
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
He might just be terminally confused - it's certainly happened before.
Ach, I'm probably just concerned about the lack of coordinated policy response. I appreciate the community-level things, but there are layers of dependency within a modern economy. That's what I mean by 'survivalist' - there's a lot of small communities in the US who think of themselves as self-sufficient when they're actually parasitic.The aim appears indeed to be to make the thing virally spread to many towns, which it has done already.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Can you find where I advocate such things and then explain why I shouldn't? Do you think that government should not exist at all?
I don't call myself any of these things.Anarchists, Socialist, Communists, Greens. They're all the same.
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote