Why call neighborhoods with mandated ultra-high density “Green Bantustans”? Because the Bantustan was where a racist elite used to herd the African masses during South Africa’s apartheid era. The commonality between the Green Bantustan and the Racist Bantustan becomes clear when you step back and ponder what is happening. In both cases, a privileged elite condemn the vast majority of individuals to live in a concentrated area designed to minimize their impact on the land.…
“Smart Growth” is Not Smart, It’s Just Cruel
None of this is necessary. The idea that American policymakers should enforce urban containment is a cruel, entirely unfounded, self-serving lie.
So that’s why. I’m house hunting and I noticed the lack of yards in new construction. I’m avoiding cities now and looking for a couple of acres in the rural areas.
Source: California’s Green ‘Bantustans’ Are Coming to America
NPR is a hotbed of liberal idiocy. The fact that my taxes fund this tripe highly offends me.
I recently graduated with my Bachelor’s in environmental science, and I’m very interested in protecting the environment and teaching others about climate change. I want to know ways in which I can better explain myself to others, just regular people who might not have the education that I have about climate change, because from where I’m standing, it’s blatantly obvious what’s going on, and it just seems like we really need to come together and actually make a change, or there’s going to be a really bad end.
In this paragraph ‘education’ is synonymous with ‘indoctrination’. I would agree with his statement that ‘we need to come together and actually make a change’. The change that needs to be made is for NPR to quit promoting known falsehoods. Here’s another example of the falsehoods promoted by NPR:
Nothing the environmentalists are suggesting would cause harm.
Then why are you waiting for the government to adopt your policies? Just start living your life the way you want the government to force the rest of us to live. Be an example. Go live in a cave.
Source: NPR: How Do We Talk to the Dangerous Idiots Who Disagree With Us? – Washington Free Beacon
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Got that. Let’s repeat:
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Source: Chuck Todd Devotes an Hour to Attacking a Strawman
In this debate, there are two types of evidence. The first is the raw material of science, observation. The second is climate models…
means video games
created by alarmists for the purpose of generating scary scenarios. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with science understands that observation (type 1) trumps theory (type2). Which is a serious problem for the left-wing warmists, since temperature records show that their models are wrong.
Source: Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud? | Power Line
Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the C02 level was about 2200 ppm—still five times the current level.
Source: When Too Little CO2 Nearly Doomed Humanity – Dennis Avery
Certainly it is a worthy thing to study ways to provide security and resilience for our cities. However, if you start with an unchallenged belief in imaginary global warming, you are going to end up making things worse. Substituting wind or solar power for conventional power plants does not provide greater energy security, for obvious reasons. Worrying about fashionable, imaginary water shortages distracts from real urban problems such as crime or broken families. Worrying about food security is fairly comical given the obesity epidemic.
Source: Articles: Academic Global Warming Advocates and the Power of Incoherent Jargon