Marchers sound urgent call for climate change action ahead of U.N. summit

(CNN) -- Tens of thousands of people marched through Manhattan sounding an urgent call for action to reverse global climate change Sunday.

One marcher's sign read "cut your emissions or you'll sleep with the fishes."

The "People's Climate March" in New York was billed as the largest of several protests held around the world two days before the start of the United Nations' Climate Summit.

CNN

CNN VIDEO

Huge crowd marching in NEW York to from all over the world demanding action against climate change. Al Gore was there along with Chris Rock, Leonardo DiCaprio and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.


The organizer Ricken Patel, was quoted "The Solution is go get 100% clean energy power society and economy"

For our kids and grand kids!!!

absolutely pointless,no one knows if this is a natural cycle of earth or not,,and according to the old scriptures of all faiths the earth had a turbullant past,and the things thats most important like increasing the rainforests and all plant and tree life accross the globe(they really do eat co2) and banning nuclear power as this mutates dna not to mention addressing the poisons in our foods,,,how many emissions does the commercial air traffic and space launches that actually pierce a whole in our ozone truely account for????????? when cars and factories are at ground level and disapate around the globe far before they reach the ozone,,,,address the above first,,stop the elite ruling us like slaves when they have proved time and time again across the globe that they are incapable off logic and reason and money is the only language they know,,,,trees create oxygen so why are we still chopping them down for profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was a lot of money in that there march.

Very nice, professional banners. So upmarket.

Must be money involved, lots of it.

Oh, Al Gore was there, that explains it.

P

Yea ,Al Gore and even celebrities .$$$ . Was the US Gestapo there to break some heads or disperse their pet gasses on this big crowd ,or was this sanctioned and paid for by Big Oil and Big business . a reply to: pheonix358

a reply to: the2ofusr1

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

People came from "all over the world" to march against the negative affects of pollution? I wonder how much of a carbon footprint this parade of hipocrisy produced?

I compost, recycle, ride the train, and am conscious of my water usage, so I'm all for showing mama Earth some TLC but I also wouldn't bring cocktails to an AA meeting. Yanno?

I'm sure this is no coincidence either:

Heirs to the Rockefeller family, which made its vast fortune from oil, are to sell investments in fossil fuels and reinvest in clean energy, reports say.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is joining a coalition of philanthropists pledging to rid themselves of more than $50 bn (£31 bn) in fossil fuel assets.

The announcement will be made on Monday, a day before the UN climate change summit opens on Tuesday.

Some 650 individuals and 180 institutions have joined the coalition.

Source: www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: BunnyMars
People came from "all over the world" to march against the negative affects of pollution? I wonder how much of a carbon footprint this parade of hipocrisy produced?

I compost, recycle, ride the train, and am conscious of my water usage, so I'm all for showing mama Earth some TLC but I also wouldn't bring cocktails to an AA meeting. Yanno?

Everyone knows that "In war there are sacrifices", so a very very small sacrifice towards meeting and showing concerns.

You are wearing the small shoes.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: the2ofusr1

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

Great post too bad so many are indoctrinated by industry. Its almost pointless to show any facts to this group, even though the link you provided debunks O'keefe, they still keep posting it and believing in it. Worldwide this is a very small group mainly here in the US where industry has joined up with political ideology.

Deniers are a worldwide small minority, and what would it take for these people to break free from there conditioning? This small group is preventing any real action from taking place, I guess they won't believe till things get much worst then it will be too late.

If man-made climate change is real, it is literally impossible to do anything about it. Sure we can delay or postpone the results, but make no mistake it won't be stopped. The only way to stop it, is to break society as we know it down and rebuild it from the ground up, and there is literally ZERO way that the people in charge (yes even the tireless politicians screaming about climate change) will relinquish that control to make this change come about. That's why we have "carbon credits" instead of real solutions being pushed by these dingbats.

So in the end, I've decided to not care whether it is man made or not and just sit back and watch the show as it goes down. If we all die, then so be it. Gotta die sometime.

PS: By the way, those marchers are all hypocrites. I'm sure they all went back to whatever comforts of society that they love that contribute to the pollution in the world as soon as they went home. Propaganda bullcrap.

It looks more like it was about promoting Communism and Socialism than it was about climate change.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So the cost related to run away climate change would force us to rebuild society. Waiting to rebuild society until its too late will be difficult. Beginning now when we still have a opportunity would be much better.

The bible claims in the end many will be deceived, perhaps God knew what would happen. Perhaps God knew money and economy and industry would lead to our destruction, by damaging our environment. We have the choice to act or to do nothing. Have you been deceived by propaganda, would you recognize this if it was staring you in the face, or is being a energy voter enough for you?

Doing something will cost us money. but the rewards of a clean Earth would benefit everyone.

Doing nothing could lead to our extinction, is profit worth it? profit for a few?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Earths natural systems is not releasing C02 like our industry is.

Do you really believe our society and industry and the C02 its releasing is not going to have any effect on the environment?

How will Earth and its natural systems gonna deal with so much C02 and a ever increasing amount of methane?

Pretending like it isn't a problem will no make it go away.

Seriously if you don't think car exhaust is not bad for the environment, seal off you win dows and doors with duct tape and plastic and start your car in the garage and see what effect it has on your family!!!

The reason why "Marchers sound urgent call . . ." is because they're losing momentum and popular support. If they can't destroy the existing society in the next couple of years, it isn't going to happen. This is the time for shouting, fear-mongering, and inducing panic, if possible. A realistic review of the problem would be fatal to their program.

originally posted by: charles1952
The reason why "Marchers sound urgent call . . ." is because they're losing momentum and popular support.

Worldwide support is damn near unanimous. It's only in the States where this issue has been politicized so as to do nothing(Ie: spend money) that there's even an issue.

Secondly, say some of these "hypocrites" spent $2000 to be there, so what? How much does the US "scientific" community put into CC denial?

a reply to: FlyersFan

I'll leave you with this oldie but goodie to ponder - 'Hide the decline'.

One of the things I ponder often in these threads is why people keep throwing stuff such as what you threw out as if it had any credence to it. It is widely known that climategate and the accusations of wrongdoing have been debunked from multiple sources even in the oil industry. In case you haven't been made aware of that in the past years here is a link. www.skepticalscience.com...

Along those same lines I often wonder why some studies or scientists from the denier groups are selected over more qualified scientists. Sometimes experts are quoted correctly, but they happen to disagree with the vast majority of their equally qualified (or more qualified) colleagues. How do the scientifically illiterate select this minority of experts?

Is it all about confirmation bias or is there more to it? Maybe one day I will get a solid answer on that.

Anyway from what I have read it was a great turnout it kind of puts an end to the myth that everyone is apathetic which has been said to excuse poor turnout to other rallys. It isn't that people are apathetic its that there was never much support for those other issues.

Bunch of hypocrites, I wonder if they are going to haul their garbage back home or just litter?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So the cost related to run away climate change would force us to rebuild society. Waiting to rebuild society until its too late will be difficult. Beginning now when we still have a opportunity would be much better.

Beginning now and doing anything that would be effective would require literally EVERY human being on the planet to change his or her priorities and act accordingly. Impossible.

The bible claims in the end many will be deceived, perhaps God knew what would happen. Perhaps God knew money and economy and industry would lead to our destruction, by damaging our environment. We have the choice to act or to do nothing. Have you been deceived by propaganda, would you recognize this if it was staring you in the face, or is being a energy voter enough for you?

I don't care what the bible says. The bible isn't a true account of events in the past. In fact, I'd say that the bible is one of the first pieces of written and widespread propaganda. Have YOU been deceived by propaganda?

Doing something will cost us money. but the rewards of a clean Earth would benefit everyone.

Doing something will cost us WAY more than just money. The paradigm shift would be so extensive that nothing you consider normal as far as technology goes, would be acceptable. Then you have to have this paradigm shift implemented in such a way that 100% of the human population accepts it without question. Otherwise you will have dissent and resistance. This leads to war. Since we are restructuring society, naturally our economy would also have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Good luck uprooting THAT tree.

Doing nothing could lead to our extinction, is profit worth it? profit for a few?

Who knows? But I can say that it is all meaningless anyways. If we go extinct, outside of a VERY few possibilities, life will continue to go on without us (basically unless we sterilize the planet, life will go on). Heck even if a very few survive, even the human race won't go extinct, because humans have the reasoning power to circumvent and adapt to the changes. As long as they [humans] can hang on long enough, evolution will take over and humans will eventually thrive in the new environment we've created. It's already happening, by the way.

Keep in mind, thanks to evolution, even if we drastically alter the eco-system, evolution will take care of everything. Life will adapt and thrive again. It's only a matter of time. This is all why I'm not worried. I don't try to delude myself into thinking I'm special or anything. If everything goes bottom up and my time comes up, so be it. But I'm not deluded enough to believe that we as a species will change our fate. That's pretty much out of our hands (and quite possibly anyone's hands no matter how wealthy they may be).

a reply to: intrepid

dear intrepid,

I appreciate the fact that you are Canadian, both of my parents were born in Manitoba, and the sense of kinship is unmistakable. My first football team was the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, and the Goldeyes made me happy when it came to baseball.

Aw, but we grow up and put away the good and valuable for the fleeting. Things like the climate take the place of picking apples or walking in the woods. But I suppose that, as adults, we're required to talk about these things, as punishment for some serious sin we committed long ago.

I'd hate to be thought of as someone accusing others of hypocrisy, and I really don't think I did. Perhaps that was someone else. The marchers were using climate fears as a motivator to tear apart Western countries, especially the US. I don't see hypocrisy in that, it's a tactic which has been moderately successful in the past.

But I do have trouble with the idea that only the US has any question about the validity of catastrophic man-made global warming. (If it's not catastrophic, who cares. If it's not man-made, but primarily natural, not much we can do about it.) It would be difficult to find that even half of the scientists in the US believe that such warming exists. (Warming which is caused mostly by man, is catastrophic, and will be coming in the relatively near future.) My guess is that perhaps a quarter of the scientists believe that, and they would be largely government scientists.

Opinion around the world? Well, Africa doesn't accept it, or care about it. But I suppose that their opinion doesn't count. Here's a quick overview of opinion polls.

Poll #1: "According to a paper published in the April 2012 edition of Nature Climate Change, the results of 74 different opinion surveys from 2002-2010 show US public concern about climate change reached a high point of 54% in 2007 and declined to about 44% in 2010."

Poll #2: "Swedish politicos ‘don’t buy climate change’...Six of ten local politicians in Sweden doubt whether human activity is to blame for global warming, a new study has found."

Poll #3: "Gallup asked Americans to say how much they worry about each of seven environmental problems. All show significantly less worry today than in 2000, when worry was at or near its high point for each item...Concern about global warming is lowest of the seven environmental issues tested..."

Poll #4: "'Fewer Americans today believe there is a scientific consensus than did so during the 2000s... after peaking in 2010, public skepticism about global warming softened slightly in 2011, and remains at lower level this year...Today's level of belief that global warming is similar to what Gallup found in 1997 & from 2001-2005' -- 42% say media exaggerate the seriousness, a higher amount than it was for much of the past decade'"

Poll #5: "According to the Lowy Institute's annual poll, Australians are losing their conviction on climate change. The last poll, published in June 2011 showed that just 41 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement, "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs" down from a whopping 68 per cent in 2006."

www.c3headlines.com...

As I say, support is falling, and the move has to be made quickly, if it's going to be.

Oh, how much money is spent opposing Climate Extremists? (It's tough to find a term as objectionable as "Climate Deniers." This will have to do for now.) I don't know, that would be interesting to know.

I have read that the world spends $1 billion dollars a day on global warming research, plans, publicity, papers, etc. I'm sure deniers don't spend that much. And a billion a day? Is it any wonder that global warming extremist scientists have an incentive to keep their jobs by agreeing that it's a problem that needs massive amounts of money thrown at it?

With respect,
Charles1952