Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The numbers are rolling in…and they’re impressive in a odd way. Based on numerous news reports, somewhere in the neighborhood of 310 to 400 thousand people participated in the People’s Climate March on Sunday, September 21, 2014 in New York City. The parade was, of course, a precursor for the U.N. Climate Summit 2014, which begins tomorrow.
Yet the results of the U.N.’s Global Survey for a Better World, also known as MyWorld2015, show “Action taken on Climate Change” at the very bottom…the abyss…of things that matter most to families around the globe. See the screencap below. If you haven’t had your say, you can take the survey here.
Looks like the 310 to 400 thousand people who marched in Manhattan yesterday have priorities that are out of touch with the rest of the occupants of this lovely planet.
Considering the object of the U.N. meeting, maybe the marchers should have been calling for “honest and responsive government“, which ranked much higher than climate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The stupid shall not inherit the planet. All things pass. They were yesterday’s news; now they are olds.
It seems to me that they already have looking at the pics from the march.
400,000?
Cant anyone do arithmetic?
16,000 is more like it
The crowd was 15 blocks long on 6th Ave, about 4000 feet.
6th Ave is 120 feet wide.
120 x 4000 is 480,000 sq feet. In that ballpark.
So if they had 400,000 people, then your Average Joe Environmental Activist fits into 1.2 square feet.
But the Settled Crowd Counting Science says that 30 square feet (5×6) is typical for a march.
So they had 16,000 people.
To get 400,000, the crowd would have gone back 20 miles, to Connecticut.
I’ll go with Tammie’s numbers.
That sounds about right. London Underground’s research indicates that 50 pounds per square foot is the concentration at which crowds could no longer move forward so about one 150 pound (average person) per 3 square feet. One person per 1.2 square feet would be the point at which it was hard to breath (a frightening sensation I experienced myself on the Embankment during Millenium celebrations) and certainly impossible to move under your own power.
Haven’t these people ever flown United Economy, in seat 27B?
As I noted, if we believe the 311,000 attendees (not 310,000, not 312,000) claimed by the Climate Scientists, then the crowd density of people moving in a freely flowing march was about 1.5 square feet per person.
That’s 5 times more crowded than a fully loaded United Airlines 737.
Perry says:
…now they are olds.
Yes, they are olds:
Not just olds (hey, I resemble that remark), but odds, or rather, un-diverse, homogenized (could probably do with being pasteurized 🙂 )… anyway, the folks in the twitterverse noticed something:
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/22/some-people-noticed-something-peculiar-about-attendees-of-climate-marches-and-its-hilarious-photos/
Looks like (Soros’s?) $50.00 per person mailing list, erm, pales by comparison with some of the others (e.g. occupy, etc.). When you follow the money, it’s realllly pathetic. The propaganda is
flowing thick and fast over here in Europe, too…lots of ‘perception’, shortage of reality and facts…
Great signs:
‘Mad As Hell and Not Going to Take it Anymore!
Stop Climate Change Now!
Carbon Tax Now!
Turn Off Lights
Turn Out Deniers
The intelligence just leaps off the page at you.
These marchers may get the lights turned off sooner than they think!
Because they are told lies by other idiots ? Good example. LOL
Those who get their news and opinion from the likes of John Stewart. “other idiots” in my comment refers to “the likes of John Stewart”.
Truth be told I’m not really Ok with ANY of them on either side if the isle being in charge of anything, I’ve rarely seen a more stellar bunch of maroons all gathered in one town, with the possible exception of NYC this past weekend.
And in my opinion you need better news and science sources, or more precisely, you need to start relying on ACTUAL news and science sources.
LMAO. Thanks Peter. You actually made me laugh twice in two days.
Back at Breitbart drone footage is available to view the crowd; seems not huge though.
I have to wonder about that crowd. The population of Manhattan is more than 1,600,000. I suspect that many of them decided to party on a nice Sunday afternoon. I probably would have.
If the number of local residents was subtracted, no doubt the total would be far lower.
Hilarious – from those poll numbers, pretty much everyone who ticked the “environment” box was at the march.
Well, don’t that roast yer fish. You can bet that the whole lot of Climate Rhetoricians will be in force as the Climate Summit commences, and likely to get a rousing Circus-like response from O. Bummer et Al[Gore]. All the while ignoring their immense carbon footprint. In so being patted on the back and tut-tutted by the likes of Weepy Bill, they will now somnambulate back into their respective bucolique, and await trampling by the real issues that their messiahs so fervently downplay.
There was not such a turnout in the UK….
petey, they should have set it in India, so that the massive march could take place down roads full of people who live in both financial and energy poverty and who will Continue to live in poverty if the climate policies you and yours believe in, are enacted.
from radio reports Aussies also turned up in hundreds..except for melbourne..or so they say. havent seen pics.
Don’t expect a rational reply from the irrationality!
Sure! For one thing, I believe the poorest of the poor nations, should be allowed to Develop their resources and build energy infrastructure that doesn’t rely on wind to blow 24/7 at just the right speeds, or the sun to shine 24/7!
How’s that?
…but Otter’s is the correct approach, Peter.
Or do you disagree?
Would you support Portland Oregon’s denial of a coal port for exports to China, India, and any other developing country?
[Were] you there Peter? Where does the climate hoax rank for you?
Beats the heck out of your approach Pete. Creating poverty to fight a problem that never existed.
The pay for “protesters” in the UK was most likely not enough to get a good turnout.
Peter did you not look at that poll? Reliable Energy at Home beat Action on Climate change by 400,000 votes. Considering that most people in the developed world have reliable energy at home, don’t you think it is the people in the poor countries who really want that? Don’t you think they would prefer reliable cheap energy over expensive and unreliable solar panels and windmill?
British corn equals American wheat. American corn equals British maize.
==========================
CO2 has done a wonderful job these past three years “enhancing” the agricultural output of the Central Valley in California. It has also done wonders for the output of Death Valley and the Sahara.
Beckley,
Cherry-picking? Looks like it.
I posted verifiable evidence of the global rise in ag productivity. Dispute that, if you think you can.
Your cryptic, vague comments just clutter up the thread. If you have something to say, say it.
Every gardener knows that water is more important for agricultural output than CO2
Assuming about 600000 attended worldwide that would make about 0.01% of the total world population. Not what you would call a real consensus.
Yes. And even assuming it was 400000 its about 0.1% of the US population. About the same percentage as marched in Australia. Pathetic!.
Nice, though predictable, continuation of the hatchet job started yesterday:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/21/paid-volunteers-for-the-nyc-climate-march/
Truth isn’t a hatchet job. Don’t like this websites view then post truthful counter-information rather than trolling.
But from your comment it is clear that truth isn’t high on your list of priorities.
Ah, but his screen name is apropos!
What’s on that page about trolls?
Village Idiot
Truth, facts and reality are NOT a “hatchet job”.
The truth is that the NY “People’s Climate March” demonstrated lack of support for the global warming scare.
The facts are that the “March” attracted a surprisingly small number of participants. Assume the largest estimate of those who attended the NY “People’s Climate March” is correct then ~400,000 people attended. This compares with ~50,000 who completed the NY Marathon and ~2,000,000 who lined the marathon course last year.
And the reality is that the lack of support and surprisingly small participation in the “March” was because most people don’t care about the false issue of the global warming scare, and they say they don’t care when polled about it.
Richard
I think that the assertion was that even 100 000 is an overestimate by a long way. A stadium provides about 0.5×1.2 metres per person for the cattle class seating. A four lane road in the city is 12 m wide so 20 people per m is a generous estimate of the crowd density for those people marching (assuming that they would like a decent gap between each row for a long stride without taking off the shoe of the person in front). The Huff/post says that the circuit was 3.2 km. Lets say that it was continuously filled. That would give 64 000 people. After homogenization, we get 300 -400 thousand.
who cares how many were there. It is only a measure of ignorance. In 1969 I was a paid protester in the anti Vietnam Nam rallies, and so were most of my friends. Only 20 dollars and a meal but we were poor college students and it was exciting. I suspect that many such people attend marches with the same reasons I had. In 1970 I was drafted and went to SE Asia.
Yet the post referred to a call-out for people to hand out leaflets and get paid $50. Nothing in the post misdirected commenters to believe that the marchers themselves were paid. Reading comprehension is a skill you should use.
I would imagine that handing out leaflets during a march requires a complicated permit along with a host of other rules. And I would imagine there are businesses to fill that nitch.
awesome point
Re: Pamela Gray September 22, 2014 at 5:15 am:
When I was younger and stupider, I protested near the UN against nuclear weapons (as if there are people in favor of them) . I didn’t go with a group, and I found myself standing near a group of anarchists. Even back then I was a limited government type, so I figured anarchists were the closest thing to limited government I would find there. I had nothing better to do, so I asked if I could hand out leaflets, I wasn’t paid, there were no permits required and there was no training, I handed them to whomever would take them, then when I got bored I throw them away. Nothing to it.
“vicgallus the figures below 310,000 only survive in comment threads like this one. ”
It says it all about the mentality of a true believer. There are calculations for you to check. What was wrong with them? There are more above. Find a flaw with them. These proper estimates are around the tens of thousands and not 200. I say proper not because it comes from authority but how its calculated is there for you to see and for you to make a judgement,
Village Idiot says: “Nice, though predictable, continuation of the hatchet job…”
Hatchet job? Nope.
A realistic look? Yup.
Have a good day.
Rule #1 of ‘Sceptisism’: Sow doubt about the data.
And you 🙂
Village Idiot says: “Rule #1 of ‘Sceptisism’: Sow doubt about the data.”
I didn’t question the numbers in either case, Village Idiot. You’re wasting your time, and, more importantly, my time.
Adios.
VIllage Idiot’s guide to reality. Ignore any problems with the data if paid to do so.
Village Idiot,
What data?? All I see are opinions. Numbers have been ratcheted up throughout the past 24 hours, from a few tens of thousands, to a hundred thousand, to a worldwide total of 300,000 – 400,000, to a Manhattan-only total of 300,000 – 400,000. Believe what you want. But it’s not data.
Alarmist Rule #1: Refuse to believe the real data, no matter how often it is confirmed.
Example: there are plenty of village idiots who still argue that global warming is continuing. They even argue that global warming is accelerating.
They are nuts, of course. But at least they follow Rule #1.
Please post your take on the march and please do so with as much detail as possible.
Interesting how the trolls declare any truth that they wish to hide, a hatchet job.
The way to annoy a so-called progressive is to tell the truth about what they say or do. The best way to stop a so-called progressive is to quote them accurately and in full. No wonder village idiot is so upset.
The most interesting statistic on that http://data.myworld2015.org site is the number of 16-30 year olds.
The total poll number is 5,015,344. The 16-30 group that responded was 3,159,132.
• 3,178,671 voted for a good education
• 1,050,574 voted for climate change action.
At best, only 1/3 of the 16-30 crowd voted for climate change action.
What awfulness? I live 25 degrees south of the equator, about 100 years of global warming in the future, even at IPCC rates, for most Americans. “Awful” is not the word I would use to describe the weather in these parts.
Somehow, I seem to have read those words ten years ago…and wait, I get a deja vu right now: Ten years from today, I will hear them again.
Peter, the “awfulness of AGW will only become prominent in those people’s lives a decade or so hence” has been a “decade or so hence” for the past three decades at least. Could you be a little more specific on which decade this awfulness will occur, or is it always to be “some decade in the distant future”?
Which decade would that be? The ones following the predictions of Paul Erlich?
They’re long since gone, but keep up the good work and keep those fear-predictions alive. .
@Peter………
A decade or so hence these people will realize that AGW is a hoax, and a political agenda that was never proven and which has now been disproven by time.
Peter, come now. You accuse Bob of a hatchet job regarding the march yet you do the same. No one, not even climate scientists go as far as you just did saying that awful AGW will be here in a decade or so. You just cut to pieces their research and you are on THEIR side! I would imagine even Mikey did a faceslap to your comment.
If it hasn’t warmed at all in almost 20 years, why do you believe that it’s all going to heck in the next 10?
The “awfulness of AGW will come from the things the idiots have done to try and fight it.
Massive poverty, loss of freedom, etc.
Ah ha ha ha ha! They’re subjected to climate brainwashing from Kindergarten on and at a bare minimum 67% of them reject it as critically important. That’s a big FAIL for you and your ilk.
do, not “due” with time.
Phew. That’s a relief. Usually we are told it is going to be awful in about five years.
I think they’ve been saying that for well over 1/4 of a century now.
Sea level rise seen from a longer perspective:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TGbHwwJPxhI/AAAAAAAABPs/GM0nE65s-Sg/s1600/past+mean+temp+co2+sea+level+variations.jpg
You are wrong ferdberple
=========
I live in Vancouver. Here is the raw data for Vancouver. Plainly there is no rise in sea levels. If it isn’t rising in Vancouver, it can’t be rising anywhere else because the oceans are all interconnected.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php
Here is the tidal graph for Pt Atkinson. This gauge is situated on bedrock on West Vancouver. Again no sea level rise.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/193.php
Victoria BC. Sea levels unchanged for 100 years:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/166.php
@Karl Horrex
Wouldn’t more current a graph include the CO2 level of today, so about 400 ppm, which would be off that chart?
In today’s world a slight rise of the sea level would have considerable impact on the populated areas, compared to the past when such risk didn’t exist.
@fredberple: “If it isn’t rising in Vancouver, it can’t be rising anywhere else because the oceans are all interconnected.”
Please note that sea level rise at any given location is also affected by tectonic movements, glacial rebound, and subsidence.
To some people the most awful thing is that the catastrophe that was promised is not occurring.
Also, Many of the posts referring to paid volunteers were in jest. Mine were. On WUWT, if the subject of the thread is not scientific, the sarcasm and humor will likely rule.
400,000/total population of the US (approximate) = .00133333 =.133333%. That is not a whole lot of Americans concerned about the issue of AGW, as far as I am concerned, even if we take for granted the number of people who actually showed up (which I doubt, given the MSM’s propensity to miscount at these types of rallies).
By the way, guys like you were predicting “the awfulness of AGW. . . a decade or so hence” about 25 years ago already. So stop playing at Chicken Little, it is unbecoming.
One of the attractions of global-warming/climate-change is that it gives believers an excuse (a bad excuse) to dismiss the legitimate opinions and concerns of others who may disagree.
I wonder how many of of the 300K finished their day by having a nice burger and a starbucks coffee, before loading up the family into the gas-guzzling people carrier and heading home to relax in their air conditioned apartment.
And how many will have gone home and thought “I must change my lifestyle to save the climate”?
Or was it just a nice day out watching a parade, – and a good opportunity to try out their brand new iphone6.
With any luck, they might have spotted someone famous.
Correct. How many were protesters and how many were just out to watch the parade?
How many thought it was the line to buy the latest iPhone?
My personal belief is that more CO2 has more benefits than drawbacks for this globe – it provides exponentially diminishing more warmth for more arable land with more CO2 food for healthier crops. To increase this amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I burn all the detritus from pruning my fruit trees without ever consulting local burn laws. Consequently I am not a hypocrite.
Mr. Grace,
I believe that more CO2 is a net benefit to the world as well. Plants love it as food and grow better and feed more people. Peter, you worry about the arable land taken out of production by storm surges, but don’t seem to worry about the arable land taken out of food production to make fuel for cars. This makes food costlier for the poor where those of us more affluent just pay more and move on. I would put an argument in for making more CO2 to make it warmer and making more arable land that way, except that I don’t believe the CO2 makes that kind of difference. In fact, in the face of a permanent cooling trend, I could not make that argument to slow a cooling trend down because I simply do not believe the extra CO2 would slow it down at all. I DO like the fact that plants grow faster when there is more of it.
One of the things hiding in this thread is that the implication of less food for the poor, is that there are many in the green movement who believe the earth is overpopulated, and would be better off with fewer people. Decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge would say before his visits with the various spirits.The problem with that is the BILLIONS you have to kill off getting there. The bad guys of the 20th century only managed roughly 100 million. You really do have ambitions. You worry about those on coasts being threatened by rising ocean levels, but they are not threatened with death. The ocean rises too slowly for that, even if warming continues at the rates prior to the leveling off seen during the past 18 years. Yet you don’t seem to worry about all the people facing starvation because they can no longer afford food because it is being used to make fuel instead. This is entirely consistent with a view that hopes the population of the world will decline and provides an allegedly green excuse for accomplishing it. Well played, Mr. Grace.
It did not affect pensioners or the poor
============
If you are talking about BC you are very much mistaken. The program was a disaster, siphoning money out of the school systems into the hands of a few select private companies. Money that could have gone to replace ageing furnaces instead went for projects that would have been built regardless. Only after repeated investigations by newspapers and private individuals, and a scathing report by BC’s Audotor General was the governments forced to roll the tax over into general revenue.
They just don’t realize that “Action on climate change” means they can’t own a car, or have reliable power to run their tvs and computers. Yes, that’s exactly what it means. No, there is no such thing as “clean and green” power, other than Nuclear (which is off the table to people who don’t understand physics or the real world).
You’re not agreeing with me, you’re demonstrating that something I typed as sarcastic seems appealing to you.
I hope some day you take the time to learn some basic physics, and not the ridiculous politicized “new science” crap that you seem to love spouting off. There are no “renewables” that are in any way useful in our society. None.
CodeTech
Actually there is one useful ‘renewable’ and it is hydroelectricity. Its usefulness is why Greens oppose it.
Richard
@rcourtney
Firewood is renewable
@beckleybud@gmail.com
I’ve heard it even grows on trees.
Lemmings
Make yourself a strong cup of coffee and watch:
http://new.livestream.com/unionseminary/avaazclimatebreakfast
I don’t care that it’s in New York (where 95% of the people live perpetually with their heads up their a@ur momisugly@es), those numbers don’t get that fluffy without help from our Decepticon President.
Barry is ramping up to do the public more violence, the worst way he can.
The UN Survey is interesting, you can change parameters- income (by country), education, age etc. Climate change goes up the rankings the richer the country gets, and with higher education levels (although it only has “past secondary”). Concern for the environment (clean rivers etc) consistently ranks higher than global climate change, which is a relief in many ways. Age, surprisingly, had less effect on climate change ranking than one might have expected.
I’m not sure about the idea of skewed priorities. Every persons priority is subjective and reflective of what they see as important in the world. It may be that some people in this survey voted for food as a priority, some voted for political freedom, others for freedom from persecution. None of these are wrong, they are just what is important to the individual. You are concerned at protesters demonstrating at what the perceive as a lack of action in climate change, that’s your choice Bob. However, by their very actions they are demonstrating political freedoms and rights which are also critical. They are likely to be well nourished, so are not to concerned over food. Their priorities suggest they are doing well and have the time and resources to be concerned about climate change. Disagree with them, but a much worse situation is when no-one cares enough about anything to protest any more. I do not agree with everything they say, but I applaud their commitment.
I condemn the collective stupidity that foams up when you mix Occupy Wall Street, left over Acorns, and OFA.
I will never applaud anyone’s commitment to harm others. They have the freedom to promote their cause, I have the freedom to mock, ridicule, and chastise.
You do indeed have that freedom Maggie. However whether they have a commitment to harm others it at best a very subjective opinion, and at worse it is antagonistic. There are people here who believe that an almost complete absence of government is desirable in any modern society. Others may be really concerned over such a dog eat dog society, but there we are. Glenn Beck has lots of followers who would love to see only the strong survive and the weak go to the wall, but I doubt we will see anyone protest against his worrying ideas. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them a threat to humanity, no, not even Glenn beck.
There are people here who believe that an almost complete absence of government is desirable in any modern society.
There’s a lie.
Glenn Beck has lots of followers who would love to see only the strong survive and the weak go to the wall…
And there’s another.
You’re just chock full of slanders.
And yes, when ten, twenty, or ten thousand, gather to shut down power in my home, that is a commitment to harm me. Not opinion. Just a fact.
Gareth, it is generally considered bad form to lie about what others say and believe.
The idea that only big govt keeps this from being a dog eat dog world is common fare amongst liberals. But even a casual reading of history shows this belief to be incorrect at best, a lie at worst.
Gareth, The driving principle of the Founding Fathers was Limited Government and personal liberty.
Read the US history that lead us to revolt and you’ll understand the American Libertarian.
Gareth, if I were as convinced as you are that this is an important issue, maybe I would see this the same way from your viewpoint. But what these folks are doing is calling for action, political action, that requires a greater exercise of power than most anyone would be willing to give to the politicians in any other situation. That it is being portrayed in the most draconian terms requiring draconian action thus justifies us questioning whether their priorities are skewed or, worse yet, unduly influenced by hysterical propaganda that is contrary to (or otherwise distorts) known scientific facts. Nevertheless, their priorities are skewed, not because of the subjectivity of a person’s priorities, but because their ignorance of the known facts and their emphasis on the wrong things becomes so apparent when you hear any of them speak (e.g. Robert Kennedy’s deflection of the questions being asked of him by a media person about how he fails to practice what he preaches).
Just took the survey.
The moment you have clicked your sixth priority the survey jumps forward to Complete.
So if you pick one and then decide it isn’t as important as a later priority then you had better not have got to 6 already This clearly biases the polling towards the earlier priorities on the list. You may not get to the bottom.
And the first option is “Action on Climate Change” as it begins with “A”.
Even with a fixed vote it still comes last.
Gee, what if they are ALL important? Do we really have to pick 6? And I strongly disagree with those on this thread who say that fighting climate change will create poverty. For whom? Why does that necessarily have to happen? Why can’t wealthy countries cut emissions, develop and transfer renewable energy technologies to developing countries, and help them leapfrog the fossil fuel economy? Many posters here are also staunch supporters of the free market, but to say action on climate change will necessarily cause poverty ignores the reality of free markets — people will buy and invest in what they value, not just what is “cheapest.”
REALITY. That’s why.
“Why can’t wealthy countries cut emissions”
Because they don’t need to. A fortune is being spent on a problem that doesn’t exist. Why not give just a fraction of the billions wasted on ‘climate change'(TM) to solving real problems like providing clean drinking water to those who desperately need it?
As for renewable energy: come back to me when the technology actually works efficiently. Windmills don’t cut it right now.
and help them leapfrog the fossil fuel economy?
==============
if the wealthy countries haven’t yet been able to do away with the fossil fuel economy, how can the poorest countries be expected to do so?
The industrialized nations such as the US got where they are by burning fossil fuels. A whole lot of fossil fuels. Having got ours, we now want to deny this to the poorest countries.
The reason we want to deny this to the poorest countries is self evident. We are afraid. Afraid the if the poorest countries do the exact same as we did, this will change OUR climate and harm us. So, we would prefer that the poor countries remain poor and not use fossil fuels.
A tax on fossil fuels will do this. Make them so expensive that only the rich countries can afford them. 6 dollar a gallon gasoline is only an issue if you make $6/day. If you make $600/day it is not an issue, you will keep on driving.
So in the end, only the poor will suffer. Greed and fear, that is what is driving us. Of course we don’t admit it. We rationalize and claim we are trying to save the planet. We are of course trying to save ourselves. To keep what we have and deny it to the rest of the planet.
The only way to reduce CO2 production is by making everyone poor. There are no renewable energy technologies that are capable of providing cheap and reliable power. Without that, widespread poverty is inevitable.
Again, all of these comments ignore basic principles of free markets — people are free to supply and use substitutes, innovate, and economies of scale develop for new(er) technologies.
Free markets are not allowed. Windmills, AKA bird choppers, are forced on us and raise both our electric bills and our taxes.
Always scroll down through all the offerings before selecting any. If the survey does not allow you to do so, do not complete it.
I have the opposite problem with the survey – I was required to check more boxes than I wanted to. Somewhat implicit – though not stated – is the background that these are things that the UN will, directly or by influencing member governments, take as priorities.
All of these things are good things, at least on the surface. (Take reliable energy at home, for example. That’s great if it means more power plants, transmission lines, and gas wells. Not so much if it means everybody gets a solar panel instead of something more economical and reliable.) On the other hand, it is highly questionable whether it is useful or even desirable for the UN to engage in the pursuit of any of them. A UN program for better jobs is probably not going to be useful, and would probably be counterproductive.
I chose four items – access to clean water and sanitation, political freedoms, an honest and responsive government, and freedom from discrimination and persecution – that I thought were within the realm of things the UN could (potentially) positively influence. Even those goals have the potential for bad outcomes with UN types involved. I had to pick two more items to complete the survey. Now those two random items show up in the results as if I cared about them, when I don’t (at least I don’t care for the UN to be involved with them).
The take-away being that people likely are much less concerned about some of these things that the survey might suggest.
Bob, every one of these topics is an Agenda21 action item.
Meanwhile back at the ranch here in Munich, the Oktoberfest sees about 7 million people marching through the streets to get beer.
Kind of puts the People’s March in perspective.
I tend to agree that beer is much more important than climate change, and has been for several centuries. There won’t be any beer in the green utopia™ – smacks too much of enjoying oneself. Hair shirts all round!
and all that CO2 in the bubbles too…ahh the destruction of the climate (/sarc for those who need it)
And after reading some of the comments here, I could use a good brew about now.
Is it me, or has the troll population increased somewhat dramatically of late?
Increased trolling = Increase in desperation.
Feeding trolls is like playing the carnival game “Whack A Mole”. As soon as you prove any given point wrong, they just move on to the next talking point. And as typical, they never respond to facts.
Significantly fewer than the worldwide queues for the launch of the latest iPhone, and possibly fewer than the first week’s sales of said product in NY State. People do indeed have their priorities skewed by their immediate environment and perceived needs, rather than rational thought – in most cases.
I suspect the impact of yesterday will be greater than any of us would like.
No, climate is now another astroturf faux movement. It is not going anywhere. The hustlers are simnply selling princes some new clothing.
I wish I could agree, but since it’s the #1 issue the Pres has hung his hat on, having destroyed any other possible legacy he may have had, that gives it more ooooomph.
I agree it will have an impact, unlike most marches. See my 3 comments below starting at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/22/more-than-310-thousand-people-with-skewed-priorities-flood-new-york/#comment-1743831
It’s notable that the next to last item is political freedoms. It would seem that people make no connection between political freedom and being able to attain all the other important things in life.
Most of the people were just stuck in traffic. I had to drop off a friend who lives near the park on 58th st. My rate of speed going back down from 58th to 42nd was 2 mph, and I was driving!
the ultimate irony. driving to a march to show concern about climate change.
If solar scientists are right, and earth’s climate cools for the next few decades, these people will still be protesting. They won’t let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
Solar need not apply. The oceanic-atmospheric teleconnected system is quite capable of causing up and down trends under a relatively steady state sun. Even climate models (that we so love to hate) that account for these teleconnections while ignoring anthropogenic (not total) CO2 can be set up to run cold.
Right — like ice-ages following orbital variations. No inherent solar-changes required.
We had a climate march here in Santa Fe last Sat. and I attended. It was the same thing here…get rid of fossil fuel..etc…What I found most amazing..the newspaper did not cover it. There is no mention of the local lemmings. There is of New York lemmings tho.
Last summer we had a green fair here which the paper endorsed. Once again there was no coverage. I would of thunk it would have made front page.