Largest Climate March in history on 09/21 in NYC to put pressure on world leaders at UN Climate Summ

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
There is a piece up at WUWT about a add in Craigs list for volunteers for the march that pays $50.00 .I wonder as another comment er had said ,"how is it considered volunteering when they pay you . wattsupwiththat.com... a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Now isn't that just telling, professional PC libtard protestors! I guess some management is going on there to "pump up the volume." PC libtards leading PC libtards, kind of like the blonde leading the blonde LOL. The problem is the crap these meat puppets create filters down to all of us that don't want to deal with their crap and really neither do they once they find out what they have done and how they have been used. It seems though that people keep supporting this farce because it's just too hard to admit they were wrong, or maybe it's pride. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt ;-)

It's too late anyway. I realize it's good to hope and dream and believe in something, but these people really have to take their blinders off and realize that IF we as a species are to blame (which I don't believe), then the physical momentum of what was started 300 years ago is not going to be stopped. I would guess that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, 10% of the total pollution occurred prior to 1920. The last 100 years or so would account for the other 90%. When that 90% catches up with us, there will be no turning back because along with the pollution, corporations have destroyed the natural scrubbers through deforestation and of course the destruction of the oceans. If it's the sun and the nebula we are passing through that is creating the problem (which I believe it is), we can't stop that either.

Our efforts would amount to paying trillions of dollars in taxes for a piece of paper to hold up in the air to stop a hurricane. Not going to happen.

Cheers - Dave

Observing MSM sources, there was a huge turnout, and celeb backed. Being a conspiracy leaning site, is it not shocking that some are weary that so many turned out for this vs let's say the NSA "Restore the Fourth" rallies(Yeah, low attendance overall was given grief for that view) issues or other? How about the police state? Peaceful protestors were met with riot gear SWAT Teams, etc. Imagine if this massive March was against the Police State! No permits near public markets, and other areas that are restricted in cities,etc., they be shut down pretty fast, pushed ou of the area, making peacefulness into abhorrence.

Thanks for sharing: a reply to: the2ofusr1 Looks like they were encouraging certain people to be acting for their filming. Not to say others didn't pay people to promote for their own cause.

Looks like China, India and Russia, the first two noted as a major cause for world pollution, will not be showing at the U.N. Climate Summit-see here.

It's good that the demonstrators are mentioning the Tar Sands issue that seems often ignored outside of local areas. Megaloads come through the NW locally, it's an issue here and more so where it is being put in Canada. source here

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Now isn't it just telling that you didn't read the article? The show, Years of Living Dangerously, was looking to hire people to pass out flyers. They weren't paying anyone to protest.

This vid says it all when it comes to celeb's speaking out . It's all about the money and like you say if it was a genuine concern the police state and msm would be going against it . As it stands msm in their one sided look at the issue fail big time . a reply to: dreamingawake

a reply to: the2ofusr1


I suggest you read this thread about that video. Another "sting" video fail from James O'Keefe.

Hmmmmmm....

I wonder if this march is the reason for the National Guard being deployed to NYC

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Isn't this the same march where half the people attending are more of the Socialist, Communist and other political ideals then that of "climate change"???

Yeah, not impressed.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Isn't this the same march where half the people attending are more of the Socialist, Communist and other political ideals then that of "climate change"???

Yeah, not impressed.

Can you show a citation for that? Or are you just assuming or making that up?

Are they not showing up? Well, they will most certainly be here this week for the UNGA.

Yes, India and China are emerging sources of pollution.

But they pale in comparison without any doubt to the historic emitters, who have been doing so for over 200 years. Top cumulative emitters:

"The United States is responsible for a whopping 20 per cent of the warming the world's experienced over the industrial period, according to new research. But when you look at emissions per person, the UK beats the US into first place.So which other countries are taking more than their fair share of the global warming pie?

Countries have contributed differently to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So some countries could be considered more or less to blame for global warming than others.

A new study published in Environmental Research Letters puts that theory into action, ranking countries in order of how much their historical emissions have contributed to observed temperature rise over the industrial period.

Global rankings

The scientists from Concordia University in Canada examined each country's greenhouse gas emissions between 1750 and 2005. Alongside carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land use change, they included methane, nitrous oxide and sulphate aerosol emissions.

Some of the results perhaps aren't too surprising. They show a small number of countries account for a large share of total greenhouse gas emissions.

The biggest emitters - US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the UK - are together responsible for 63 per cent of total emissions. The US is way out in front, contributing more than double the emissions of China in second place."

www.carbonbrief.org...’s-biggest-greenhouse-gas-emitters/

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Observing MSM sources, there was a huge turnout, and celeb backed. Being a conspiracy leaning site, is it not shocking that some are weary that so many turned out for this vs let's say the NSA "Restore the Fourth" rallies(Yeah, low attendance overall was given grief for that view) issues or other? How about the police state? Peaceful protestors were met with riot gear SWAT Teams, etc. Imagine if this massive March was against the Police State! No permits near public markets, and other areas that are restricted in cities,etc., they be shut down pretty fast, pushed ou of the area, making peacefulness into abhorrence.

Thanks for sharing: a reply to: the2ofusr1 Looks like they were encouraging certain people to be acting for their filming. Not to say others didn't pay people to promote for their own cause.

Looks like China, India and Russia, the first two noted as a major cause for world pollution, will not be showing at the U.N. Climate Summit-see here.

It's good that the demonstrators are mentioning the Tar Sands issue that seems often ignored outside of local areas. Megaloads come through the NW locally, it's an issue here and more so where it is being put in Canada. source here

This is utter crock.

The vast majority of people were legitimate marchers. The turnout was huge and represented a diverse group of people. The turnout even had people fly in from other countries, as climate change is a global issue.

Yes, we cannot change the fact climate change is occurring now based on 200 years of development. However, what is being advocated is keeping the change to two degrees celsius globally. The current "business as usual" trajectory will result in 5-7 degrees, which will most likely have catastrophic effects.

This is why action is called "climate change mitigation," i.e. mitigating the severity of the change and hence consequences. This is why leaders across the globe and UN are meeting, ambitious commitments and actions need to be made NOW to achieve that.

We all need to look at the needs of our grandchildren, as they will be the ones living through the middle of the consequences after 2050.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
There is a piece up at WUWT about a add in Craigs list for volunteers for the march that pays $50.00 .I wonder as another comment er had said ,"how is it considered volunteering when they pay you . wattsupwiththat.com... a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Now isn't that just telling, professional PC libtard protestors! I guess some management is going on there to "pump up the volume." PC libtards leading PC libtards, kind of like the blonde leading the blonde LOL. The problem is the crap these meat puppets create filters down to all of us that don't want to deal with their crap and really neither do they once they find out what they have done and how they have been used. It seems though that people keep supporting this farce because it's just too hard to admit they were wrong, or maybe it's pride. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt ;-)

It's too late anyway. I realize it's good to hope and dream and believe in something, but these people really have to take their blinders off and realize that IF we as a species are to blame (which I don't believe), then the physical momentum of what was started 300 years ago is not going to be stopped. I would guess that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, 10% of the total pollution occurred prior to 1920. The last 100 years or so would account for the other 90%. When that 90% catches up with us, there will be no turning back because along with the pollution, corporations have destroyed the natural scrubbers through deforestation and of course the destruction of the oceans. If it's the sun and the nebula we are passing through that is creating the problem (which I believe it is), we can't stop that either.

Our efforts would amount to paying trillions of dollars in taxes for a piece of paper to hold up in the air to stop a hurricane. Not going to happen.

Cheers - Dave

Here is the problem, you guys come to the discussion with out there accusations and assumptions without actually having studied what is being proposed. Instead you listen to the likes of Glenn Beck or perhaps Alex Jones who shrilly tell you that they are trying to bring the US to third world status.

No-one at these negotiations is advocating that, no-one. You would know that if you had spent the appropriate time studying it.

What is being advocated is that the methods of production and consumption must be shifted in proportion to more sustainable means. Moreover, a whole menu of options is to be used to "de-couple" or separate our economic needs from unsustainable means, while still allowing development of living standards, as they are projected to continue.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What developing nations like China, India, or Uganda have said at negotiations for 20 years now is that part of the reason that the most developed countries are ahead of others is that they enjoyed unchecked abject industrialization and environmental exploitation for several hundred years. Hence, not only do they hold more historic responsibility, factually, they also are already developed, whereas most low income countries are barely developed and did not get to enjoy 200 years of abject industrialization. Moreover, also enshrined in the negations is the right of low income developing countries to continue to develop.

Therefore, some kind of give has to be made by the already developed countries that didn't have to deal with regulations during their development process, i.e. the west and a few others. This may be giving cheap or free technological transfer, which has been discussed, or more rigorous standards for the already developed. Because again, to a certain degree the developed countries "already got theirs." Trust me, everything I just said is all discussed amongst scientists, leaders, and so on.

That explains perfectly why the program is a scam to make the wealthy MORE wealthy and bring every country in the world down to third world status!

Are these countries such as China going to have an improved life when they have made their country unlivable due to the poisoning of their environment?

The proof is in the pudding as we speak as to how polluted China has become due their rabid industrial growth. So explain to me again how bringing the US, Germany and Britain to a third world status is going to save the environment!

I don't recall the US, Germany or Britain ever becoming the toxic cesspool that China is at the moment!

Carbon Credits are a SCAM, nothing more than a transfer of what little wealth the poor working class has left into the coffers of bloated filthy rich who stand to gain from this BS program!

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

While is is the Blaze, the pictures aren't a creation of the Blaze. www.theblaze.com... g-less/

Yeah, "climate change". Sure sure.

Yes, but the data and models show that there is a portion of the change that cannot be explained by natural cycles and systems. That's all been accounted for.

The argument "but there are sun cycles and other natural cycles of climate change" is true but is also not complete because climate change scientists already know that (better than non-climate scientists) and are speaking to the anomalous data and change over time.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Carbon -Humans - Records - History ...."Geneva, 20 November (WMO) – The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2011, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Between 1990 and 2011 there was a 30% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping long-lived gases.

Since the start of the industrial era in 1750, about 375 billion tonnes of carbon have been released into the atmosphere as CO2, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, according to WMO’s 2011 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which had a special focus on the carbon cycle. About half of this carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, with the rest being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

“These billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will remain there for centuries, causing our planet to warm further and impacting on all aspects of life on earth,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Future emissions will only compound the situation.”

“Until now, carbon sinks have absorbed nearly half of the carbon dioxide humans emitted in the atmosphere, but this will not necessarily continue in the future. We have already seen that the oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the carbon dioxide uptake, with potential repercussions for the underwater food chain and coral reefs. There are many additional interactions between greenhouse gases, Earth’s biosphere and oceans, and we need to boost our monitoring capability and scientific knowledge in order to better understand these,” said Mr Jarraud." www.wmo.int...

This article takes a closer look at carbon/temps and has all of the graphs and math wattsupwiththat.com...

It's conclusions are ."

Atmospheric CO2 concentration records were being broken long before anthropogenic emissions became significant.
Atmospheric CO2 levels were rising much faster than anthropogenic emissions from 1750-1875.
Anthropogenic emissions did not “catch up” to atmospheric CO2 until 1960.
The natural carbon flux is much more variable than the so-called scientific consensus thinks it is.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) cannot be more than 2°C and is probably closer to 1°C.
The worst-case scenario based on the evidence is comparable to the IPCC’s most greentopian, best-case scenario.
Ice cores with accumulation rates less than 1m/yr are not useful for ECS estimations.

The ECS derived from the Law Dome DE08 ice core and Moberg’s NH temperature reconstruction assumes that all of the warming since 1833 was due to CO2. We know for a fact that at least half of the warming was due to solar influences and natural climatic oscillations. So the derived 2°C is more likely to be 1°C. Since it is clear that about half of the rise from 275 to 400 ppmv was natural, the anthropogenic component of that 1°C ECS is probably less than 0.7°C.

The lack of a correlation between temperature and CO2 from the start of the Holocene up until 1833 and the fact that the modern CO2 rise outpaced the anthropogenic emissions for about 200 years leads this amateur climate researcher to concluded that CO2 must have been a lot more variable over the last 10,000 years than the Antarctic ice core indicate."

"The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus assume that it can resolve annual changes in CO2. But it can’t. Each CO2 value represents a roughly 30-yr average and not an annual value.

If you smooth the Mauna Loa instrumental record (red curve) and plant stomata-derived pre-instrumental CO2 (green curve) with a 30-yr filter, they tie into the Law Dome DE08 ice core (light blue curve) quite nicely…"
The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800’s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age." wattsupwiththat.com...

No I am not.

Speaking to scientific data and projected outcomes based on scientific models isn't fear-mongering, it is being responsible.

If the evidence around the world shows that humans are severely and negatively affecting their environment, and that this is and will be harming our civilization and livelihoods, then there is only one choice: to stand up, be responsible, and do something about it or at least support action on it.

Anything else is immoral and irresponsible.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You`re doing the same fearmongering as I see from politicians and hear from MSM lately.

And I am supposed to believe this isn`t organized by governments to justify more actions ?

It is put together by The Climate Group, which includes business and government organizations focusing on the rapid scale-up of low carbon energy and technology.

Source

Sustainability and action does NOT mean eradication of all people, consumption, production, etc. It means responsible actions by people and sustainable means and levels of consumption/production. It quite literally means "living within the environments means" to sustain us long-term.

People, animals, and plant life are always cycling CO2 through the atmosphere. However, that complete symbiotic system is sustainable in its natural form. Additional people being born is not significantly affecting CO2 levels.

What is not sustainable are energy intensive and fossil fuel based economic systems pumping out massive extra amounts of various pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Sustainability is about moderation, not eradication.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Pamela Gray has said it best "Yet another opportunity to find out exactly what the protesters think they are protesting. It is especially fun to tell them their breath is loaded with CO2. They will say that their CO2 is natural so it don’t count. What really stops them in their tracks is this:

The population is increasing by 256170.349 people per day. The average human breathes out 300 Liters of CO2 per day. My calculator does not have enough digit spaces to record the increase in CO2 per day caused by human breath.

Therefore the growth in human exhaled CO2 is by far a greater increasing source than most anything else. So, if these watermelons really wanted to do something that works, they should all be sterilized instead of marching. In fact everyone who believes in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming should get themselves fixed. It would be ever so beneficial." a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

While is is the Blaze, the pictures aren't a creation of the Blaze. www.theblaze.com... g-less/

Yeah, "climate change". Sure sure.

So what, I saw some of those people too.

Let me tell you, I've been to a lot of marches and protests, and always a variety of people show up, including people with random sub-causes. However, the important thing here was that minority of leftist groups were there too to fight for climate change mitigation action. Dismissing them because they hold views on the far left shows a form of fear-mongering and dismissal.

The fact is, climate change is and will affect ALL people and groups, including Republicans, Communists, Christians, atheists, Indians, you name it. Therefore it should not surprise you that people from all political parties show up, and they do.

"More than 1,500 groups filled Central Park West before the march. They represented a variety of interests, including the scientific community and religious organizations. More than 50,000 students were there because they were worried about their future, while grandparents came out of concern for their legacy."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Here is another example. At the beginning of the Iraq War I and 100,000 people marched in San Francisco against it. There also were a few radicals of all kinds. Guess what, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Iraq War was an illegal war of aggression in violation of international law, authored by a corrupt president and regime (Bush).

Don't focus on minute random details to dismiss important movements and points.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

While is is the Blaze, the pictures aren't a creation of the Blaze. www.theblaze.com... g-less/

Yeah, "climate change". Sure sure.

And, to answer the claim of the other post that "half of the protesters" were marching for socialism/communism, that is ridiculous. There were an estimated 300,000 people there. From my own view having gone through the entire parade, perhaps 1000 of those were holding communist/socialist signs/pamphlets. That is less than 1%.......

originally posted by: Kali74
I think it's sad that trolls (appropriate) want to make fun of activists which they do based on perceptions gained second hand but given the chance to hear from their own mouths, they don't take it.

Same with the science, we read all these mocking statements about the science and what bloggers claim scientists say but when given the chance to read actual papers... nope.

You're not interested in reality, circle jerks are more fun, right?

Don't mind them Kali it looks like they are simply but hurt over the turnout. Rally envy if you may. Can't really blame them since there rallies have been flop after flop I am sure they have had to tell themselves things like it was the weather or blame the public for being apathetic to causes and here they see no it was simply because their cause sucked. They are loud and like to circle jerk on here but the fringe is like that.

Some people you will never reach but in all honesty some of them you are better off not reaching because if they were to join in they would also bring along their crazy crap that would discredit the cause by association. Think about it do you really want groups like the birthers backing these things? Of course that isn't everyone opposed to this issue but I see a couple of them posting here.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Cool story. Seems that the pictures of marchers and participants paint a different picture.


"Clime change"...Yeah, sure sure.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Cool story. Seems that the pictures of marchers and participants paint a different picture.


"Clime change"...Yeah, sure sure.

I can take pictures of anything. What the Blaze did is focus on the one or two groups of such people, out of 1500 GROUPS. Take pictures of several hundred commies, and then try to make random readers think that this was how the whole 300,000 people looked.

Now that, is propaganda. leave it to Beck to manipulate the conservatives and bring up the spectra of communism.