Thursday, 4 March 2010

Urban shrink - sustainable cities and towns

This video gives an overview ofthe “New Urbanism” movement that aims to counter and reverse urban sprawl. Not just because sprawl is ugly but because analysing the reasons for sprawl, and what happens if you reverse it, will give a very good grounding in sustainable thinking and future sustainable development.

Oddly enough, the solutions look very much like “old urbanism”, AKA traditional community design.

Ignore the “what’s the biggest threat” bit at the beginning – it’s a bit overblown. Concentrate on the bits where they slot many words into a gap in the sentences to make a “picture” paint a thousand words.



Anonymous said...

you wrote:-

"I myself am a climate science sceptic"

is this just more of your propaganda or are you in denial?

censorship of anonymous is repression

you put your ideas in the public domain(i support your right to do this)

so deal with any critics, dont go down dictator road.

is privacy and freedom of speech
banned from this blog?

if so it tells me all i need to know about you.

Anonymous said...

foi requests to cru 2009 = 61
---------- " ------ 2008 = 2

you,and real climate claim hundreds

propaganda or lies?

watch the house of commons sub committee on cru data if you want the truth on foi requests.

Nick Palmer said...

The trouble is you appear to be too stupid to have understood what I wrote about climate science scepticism. The problem is that the kind of mindless suckers who frequent "Wattsupwiththat" all think of themselves as sceptics - they are not- they are highly biased prejudiced deniers who are impervious to reason or logic. Their minds are closed.

I am sceptical in the scientific way which takes it as axiomatic that one must at least consider the possibility that something, no matter how well evidenced or proved is not so, or is wrong etc.

That is massively different to the mindless denier/sceptic types who simply reject anything they don't want to hear regardless of rationality, reason or accountability.

Let's look at your idiotic spiel for evidence of how useless your cognitive abilities are. Concentrate now!

(A)"censorship of anonymous is repression

you put your ideas in the public domain(i support your right to do this)

(B)so deal with any critics, dont go down dictator road.

(C)is privacy and freedom of speech
banned from this blog?"

A)Anonymous is not being censored or repressed. Clearly you don't understand what the word "censored" means and don't understand what repression is either. You may just be repeating some phrases that you picked up from some denialist blog and are just parroting them without comprehension.

Anonymous was and is perfectly at liberty to read the paragraph under "LEAVE YOUR COMMENT" (right side of the comments page for those too slow or blinkered to find it for themselves) and get an ID from one of the services listed there which will still enable them to post their garbage whilst preserving their "privacy".

Incidentally, why should anyone require "privacy" on a subject like this? It's totally self-indulgent and pathetic. I could understand if anon wanted to post privately to something like Stuart Syvret's blog because there are legitimate reasons for people to post anonymously on there.

Demanding "privacy" on a sustainability blog is right up there as one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of...

B) Critics (no matter how brain dead or belligerent) are dealt with. As they are not censored or repressed (see above) and can continue to post their ill thought out "soundbites" with just a tiny bit of effort on their part, your use of the phrase "dictator road" is ludicrous. What planet are you from?

C) Privacy and freedom of speech banned?

First, you conflate two separate concepts. I already pointed out the idiocy of your "privacy" meme. Surely even a bear of very little brain can work out that freedom of speech is not banned either.

I am not stopping anon foaming at the mouth and amply demonstrating their sufferance of Dunning-Kruger syndrome (look it up). They can say their piece anywhere else that they feel like.

What I am stopping is the ability of anonymous weasels to shout their mouths off anonymously with no responsibility or integrity. All they need to do is register and they can participate. It's not rocket science!

Finally, you wrote:if so it tells me all i need to know about you.

It wouldn't tell you anything about me - what it clearly shows is how you so easily jump to incorrect conclusions on inadequate evidence.

Nick Palmer said...

Anonymous (same one or different? - I'd like to know) wrote:

"foi requests to cru 2009 = 61
---------- " ------ 2008 = 2

you,and real climate claim hundreds

propaganda or lies?"

Pathetic nitpicking which is probably wrong too.

Here's a link to denier nest blog climateaudit (which organised the FOIA denial-of-time harassment attack). This particular comment is from one of our senior politicians locally who participated eagerly - as you can see she gloated over the fact that her actions may have ruined a U of E Anglia staff member's vacation. She also points out that her FOIA request was numbered as 100 in the queue.

Nick Palmer said...

Oh - and this comment suggests that there were at least 128 emails sent

Click for comment

Nick Palmer said...

BTW, you realise each email was for separate data for five different countries per email?

Maybe five hundred gives a closer perception of the true scale of the attack.

Anonymous said...

(OOps, forgot to subscribe to this thread)...

Anonymous said...

Yes, it can be an amazing experience trying to talk with so called 'sceptics' who really have more faith (believing something against the evidence) than those of us that call ourselves evangelical Christians! At least we've got some historical records to back up what we're on about... these guys have got nothing!

Sometimes before I engage a "sceptic" I try to point out that most of their objections are tired old recycled Denialist myths that are being propogated around the net repeatedly.

This New Scientist has a list of the top 28 myths that these guys push... and my favourite is "Cooling since 1998"... it's just so funny. NASA says 2005 beat it, and when 2010/2011 thoroughly beats it, are these guys going to take a break for a few years and then come back and scream,

"LOOK AT ALL THE COOLING SINCE 2011!" You heard it here first folks. It's been cooling since 2011!

Nick Palmer said...

I'm honoured, "Eclipse".