3,550
06-18-2024, 04:27 PM
It seems to me that someone is always trying to "change humanity."
Not because we must (and we must, after all, to adapt and cope with reality;) but instead to exploit humanities existence for personal gain (however you define it.)
George Carlin was, besides being funny, quite correct when he said, "It's a club... and you ain't in it!"
The global propaganda enterprise of creating and maintaining "climate panic" is insidious. One thing it does is reduce all individuals to fretting over things that are 'real' but discouraging changes by restricting anything to their "definitions" and "wisdom."
Here's an article that raises my hackles, so to speak...
City sprawl is now large enough to sway global warming over land
Which paints a narrative about something, which I would have thought made perfect sense... but apparently some thought it a mystery. The idea that cities create heat and since they are so very concentrated with human activity, that heat can affect the local temperature and 'perceived' global warming effect. (Which I thought explained, at least to some measurable degree, why generational city-folk are much more likely to be "environment-obsessed.")
As it turns out, the math is there...
![[Image: city-sprawl-now-large.jpg]](https://scx1.b-cdn.net/csz/news/800a/2024/city-sprawl-now-large.jpg)
The above graphic seems to bear out the assertion... and research data from around the world shows that the phenomenon of higher temperatures in and around cities are significantly prone to be higher... all things being equal.
...The effect is most dramatic in some of the world's most rapidly urbanizing areas. In the bustling Yangtze River Basin, for example, home to more than 480 million people (one third of China's total population), urban sprawl contributed nearly 40% of the area's increased warming between 2003 and 2019.
In Japan, where close to 10% of total land is developed, urbanization contributed a quarter of the added warming observed during the study period. The urban signal was less pronounced in Europe and North America, where urbanization boosted roughly 2–3% of warming. That's likely because much of the development there happened before the study period, and proportionally, there is still a great deal of undeveloped land compared to other smaller regions and countries.
...
(Bold lettering is mine)
In truth, It seems to make sense... and perhaps a marketing effort (I call it propaganda) will be implemented to try and convince people that living in a megacity isn't really "good for the environment" in the first place... and that would mean encouraging people to 'migrate' out of the cities... but then where would they go? Houses are at record prices... and there is really only one "owner of note" in the housing market here in America (that would be Vanguard)...
Oh yeah.. there's money to be extracted from the population there... housing...
I hope I'm wrong... I wonder where the WEF is on this? The media often tells us "they matter."
Plans within plans.
Not because we must (and we must, after all, to adapt and cope with reality;) but instead to exploit humanities existence for personal gain (however you define it.)
George Carlin was, besides being funny, quite correct when he said, "It's a club... and you ain't in it!"
The global propaganda enterprise of creating and maintaining "climate panic" is insidious. One thing it does is reduce all individuals to fretting over things that are 'real' but discouraging changes by restricting anything to their "definitions" and "wisdom."
Here's an article that raises my hackles, so to speak...
City sprawl is now large enough to sway global warming over land
Which paints a narrative about something, which I would have thought made perfect sense... but apparently some thought it a mystery. The idea that cities create heat and since they are so very concentrated with human activity, that heat can affect the local temperature and 'perceived' global warming effect. (Which I thought explained, at least to some measurable degree, why generational city-folk are much more likely to be "environment-obsessed.")
As it turns out, the math is there...
The above graphic seems to bear out the assertion... and research data from around the world shows that the phenomenon of higher temperatures in and around cities are significantly prone to be higher... all things being equal.
...The effect is most dramatic in some of the world's most rapidly urbanizing areas. In the bustling Yangtze River Basin, for example, home to more than 480 million people (one third of China's total population), urban sprawl contributed nearly 40% of the area's increased warming between 2003 and 2019.
In Japan, where close to 10% of total land is developed, urbanization contributed a quarter of the added warming observed during the study period. The urban signal was less pronounced in Europe and North America, where urbanization boosted roughly 2–3% of warming. That's likely because much of the development there happened before the study period, and proportionally, there is still a great deal of undeveloped land compared to other smaller regions and countries.
...
(Bold lettering is mine)
In truth, It seems to make sense... and perhaps a marketing effort (I call it propaganda) will be implemented to try and convince people that living in a megacity isn't really "good for the environment" in the first place... and that would mean encouraging people to 'migrate' out of the cities... but then where would they go? Houses are at record prices... and there is really only one "owner of note" in the housing market here in America (that would be Vanguard)...
Oh yeah.. there's money to be extracted from the population there... housing...
I hope I'm wrong... I wonder where the WEF is on this? The media often tells us "they matter."
Plans within plans.
