LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhat on earth are you talking about?
Did you even bother to read the thread (all one page of it), or do you always just proceed to add dismissive one liners at the end of any thread you find?
What on earth are you talking about?
Did you even bother to read the thread (all one page of it), or do you always just proceed to add dismissive one liners at the end of any thread you find?
'Climate-Gate' Scandal Should Be Wake-Up Call For Press, Politicians
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes is read it. 10 minutes of my life that I won't get back.Originally Posted by Mouroux
It is about Greens "seizing the opoprtunity" to do some central planning.
I call that socialism or communism or whatever ism you are into.
The Ballymun Tower blocks were high density living areas werent they ? Not everyone is going to fit comfortably into social engineering fantasies based around high density architecture. If you want people of all classes and social viewpoints to live comfortably together you need to give them their own front doors and organise it so that the only one suffering from them refusing to maintain their properties and the space around it is themselves e.g no run down common areas which everybody can disclaim responsibility for and dump untagged rubbish in or graffiti etc. With such a principle of maximising the easily identifiable ownership of spaces , nobodys going to tolerate their own space being dumped in, graffitied etc. Noone will look to someone else to clean it up and noone will be intruded upon by antisocial neighbours and feral kids kicking a ball through their windows etc. Thats my view on how things should go. We have learned enough about human nature over the last 100 years to know how problems develop. Anything nice or artistic or expensive should be made the responsibility of one person e.g the tenant or homeowner or else be made extremely hard to destroy or vandalise.
Does Brand succeed in his portrayal of slums --for example when he suggests that there is a positive sense of community where 'everyone knows your name' (think Cheers?) --because so much 'housing' is condensed into such a relatively small space, so that you pass by many of your neighbours during a short walk from your living quarters to a parking lot --and begin to trust them? Lots or ordinary, simple folks happily going about their lives while potentially reducing energy consumption on a grand scale?
Ballymun was knocked down, but bad communities in Dublin haven't vanished. The problem with Ballymun was the criminal element rather than high density housing. The same is true of the low-density housing across much of the north inner city. Communities often find ways to overcome the tragedy of the commons; see the work of Elinor Ostrom. But this won't happen if the community is bad to begin with. So this is not an argument against high-density housing. Even though the OP is mostly about developing countries, it also applies to countries like Ireland which have low population densities in residential areas.
Get with the program you douche bags!
'Climate-Gate' Scandal Should Be Wake-Up Call For Press, Politicians
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I went to Ikea about 2 months ago and saw a lot of TowerBlocks in Ballymun nearby which were still up and in a dilapidated state with Feral kids everywhere. The normal bus route was cordoned off by a police line. There was a car in the middle of the cordoned off road with its doors open and Gardai all around it. In saying all of this the area has really changed a lot.
Applying the prescription I mentioned in my previous post means that the decent ones living there can live more in peace with less risk of disturbance. As can the old people etc. Children would be able to do their homework in peace with no distractions if the acoustics of how one lives side by side with ones neighbours and public spaces (with feral kids or teens with beercans) are also considered. The only distraction or bad influence to someone who sees his home as his castle might be the quality of television programming.
The bad apples will possibly always be with us as its an intergenerational thing, the resources required to change that are outside what we have to spend and they and their kids have to be housed somewhere. The question is how do you prevent them ruining this idealistic high density plan ? It seems the ideal plan is ok for a middle class comfortably employed Green party voter from Dublin 4 or a banker who might vandalise his balance sheet but not his neighbourhood but it doesnt suit everyone.
"The bad apples will possibly always be with us as its an intergenerational thing, the resources required to change that are outside what we have to spend and they and their kids have to be housed somewhere. The question is how do you prevent them ruining this idealistic high density plan ? It seems the ideal plan is ok for a middle class comfortably employed Green party voter from Dublin 4 or a banker who might vandalise his balance sheet but not his neighbourhood but it doesnt suit everyone."
well said
'Climate-Gate' Scandal Should Be Wake-Up Call For Press, Politicians
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So, if it's not an awkward question, why do most sceptics, including you, assume that AGW proponents favour Cap & Trade?
This brings me to a question I have asked many but not got much of an answer: what is your real problem? AGW Theory or AGW policy response? If the latter, why argue against the former?
Corporate rule over governments is, I am convinced, at the heart of all our problems. I hope that the Tombo types who support this are in a minority.
Letting purist ideologues like yourself at the reins of power has half-filled the world with failed states. Let that not happen here.
Did you also read my bit that disagreed with such a plan? I think that evicting the countryside of farmers is the last thing countries should do.
"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.
Hurin, as it is, ordinary people, everyone, not just small farmers are finding it impossible to stay in the countryside. In Canada for example you might have to pay a special tax (thousands of dollars) to maintain a local school. Special road taxes, and so on. When it come to carbon taxes, those living in remote areas or cold areas (and it is getting colder) still need to heat themselves... think about pensioners trying to survive paying this that and the other... it's already a rip-off... we don't need even more taxes. Inevitably Cap&Trade, carbon taxes (on the weak/poor) will force people into massive urban centres. Rich folks will still have their mansions in the country side. Land will be bought up by corporations. Monsanto GM crops/products contaminate adjacent organic or semi-organic crops... so pretty soon it will be simply impossible to exist, as the little guy, anywhere other that huge urban centres. This is the future. It's not going to be some green 'utopia' (well it will be for a tiny few), but it is the reality.
Also you say "I think that evicting the countryside of farmers is the last thing countries should do", but remember that the globalist/elitist/corporate agendas will impact on everyone trying to survive in the countryside, not just farmers.
One of the arguments used in support of mass urbanisation/population centres is the amount of 'carbon' (natural harmless substance) involved in commuting etc. Well, then build small communities, local hospitals, local entertainment etc. The corporate dynamic is to eradicate all small or local enterprises and create a world where everything is centralised --massive hospitals and shopping centres in big cities, forcing people to commute if they get sick, need supplies, or simply need to find work to live. The entire 'green' narrative is a very potent way of advancing these corporate agendas, thus concentrating the money and power into the hands of the few.
And it seems from the articles in the OP that the various green activists are buying right into it. Why?
We have just found out that Tony Blair has earned approx. £20,000,000 personally in the last 3 years ---and this is a Labour guy. There is no left, or right, just the establishment. Politicians and political parties/groups can be absolutely bought and infiltrated by those who have limitless supplies of cash (and who are ruthless/psychopathic and far from stupid)... in the same way scientists, research centres, UN panels etc can all be bought. The 'science' can be manipulated, censored and ultimately bought. Everyone is responsive to money. Let's say you got a job at the UN, and everyone in your unit is assigned to work on the topic of urbansation etc. but you find that the interests of big corporations are being coincidentally (yeah right) served by scientific or statistical data... but you object, argue for the need to protect small farmers/rural communities etc. Do you think you would get a pay rise that way or be promoted or build up enough years for a good pension, or bonuses etc.?
Just think about it --is it credible that there is this 100% 'scientific' consensus on AGW? If it keeps getting cooler, they will eventually call it the consensus on AGC... but it will still be shaped and structured using M-O-N-E-Y. At one time all scientists agreed (there was a consensus!) that the earth was flat! Eventually they gave up the narrative. Eventually they will give up on AGW and the new 'consensus' will be AGC! Quick everyone, pay taxes for literally breathing! Get ready to be herded into all the lovely urban centres... because you and yours will be herded in with all the other ordinary folks. Unless you can afford to pay 1000 different little taxes on EVERYTHING.
'Climate-Gate' Scandal Should Be Wake-Up Call For Press, Politicians
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is this supposed to be a refutation to that post where I didn't argue for more taxes?
You are quite correct. This is the inevitable result of carbon trading and the globalist/elitist/corporate agendas in general. This is why carbon trading must be strongly resisted, and why rural residents all over the world need to to hold onto their land.Inevitably Cap&Trade, carbon taxes (on the weak/poor) will force people into massive urban centres. Rich folks will still have their mansions in the country side. Land will be bought up by corporations. Monsanto GM crops/products contaminate adjacent organic or semi-organic crops... so pretty soon it will be simply impossible to exist, as the little guy, anywhere other that huge urban centres. This is the future. It's not going to be some green 'utopia' (well it will be for a tiny few), but it is the reality.
The people who are most actively resisting cap and trade are the "green NGOs" who are relentlessly demonised by sceptics here.
In most developing countries, agriculture employs the vast majority of rural residents, either directly or indirectly.Also you say "I think that evicting the countryside of farmers is the last thing countries should do", but remember that the globalist/elitist/corporate agendas will impact on everyone trying to survive in the countryside, not just farmers.
Exactly.One of the arguments used in support of mass urbanisation/population centres is the amount of 'carbon' (natural harmless substance) involved in commuting etc. Well, then build small communities, local hospitals, local entertainment etc. The corporate dynamic is to eradicate all small or local enterprises and create a world where everything is centralised --massive hospitals and shopping centres in big cities, forcing people to commute if they get sick, need supplies, or simply need to find work to live.
Moroux, there is no one entire green narrative. An important feature of capitalism is that it subsumes all other narratives to its agenda. A great example of this is the use of Che Guevara's image on t-shirts and products made to promote things he was against.The entire 'green' narrative is a very potent way of advancing these corporate agendas, thus concentrating the money and power into the hands of the few.
Other "green narratives" are being used to advance agendas like yours and mine, of decentralising power and population. Why are you ignoring this fact?
You should ask them. Most "green activists" do not buy into it at all.And it seems from the articles in the OP that the various green activists are buying right into it. Why?
So, if it's not an awkward question, why do most sceptics, including you, assume that AGW proponents favour Cap & Trade?
"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.
Reply With Quote