The Climate Science Zombie Apocalypse is coming

We’ve all heard of the “zombie apocalypse”, it gets all sorts of humorous opinions about it, t-shirts, websites, iPhone covers, even the CDC got in on the act.

Now, with the call for civil disobedience to solve the mostly non-existent climate problem we have the “climate science zombie apocalypse”. This is sort of like “low information voters” except they’ll be emotional global warming zealots sans science but armed with brainless talking points. Meanwhile, Earth hasn’t gotten any warmer at the surface since 1995, or in the lower troposphere for a similar amount of time. A tweet from Barack Obama today along with a call for civil disobedience from Alternet shows us what to expect:


From Alternet:

The Rebellion to Save Planet Earth: Why Civil Disobedience Could Be Our Last, Best Hope

Traditional methods for fighting global warming have proven fruitless.

The politics of climate change are shifting. After decades of halfhearted government efforts to stop global warming, and the failure of the “Big Green” NGOs to do much of anything about it, new voices — and new strategies — have taken the lead in the war against fossil fuels.

Jeremy Brecher, a freelance writer, historian, organizer and radio host based in Connecticut, has documented the environmental movement’s turn toward direct action and grass-roots activism. A scholar of American workers’ movements and author of the acclaimed labor history “Strike!,” Brecher argues that it’s time for green activists to address the social and economic impacts of climate change and for unions to start taking global warming seriously.

His latest book, “Climate Insurgency: A Strategy Against Doom,” which will be released early next year by Paradigm Publishers, examines the structural causes of our climate conundrum and calls for a “global nonviolent constitutional insurgency” to force environmental action from below. Brecher spoke to Salon about his vision for dealing with global warming, the changing face of environmental activism, and why he thinks the People’s Climate March in New York on Sep. 21 is so important.

Full story here. h/t to Dennis Wingo.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Bofill
September 9, 2014 11:36 am

It’d be offensive if it wasn’t so absurd. Revolution for climate protection? I guess this must be some green totalitarian’s wet dream but it’s so far out of touch with reality it’s hard to consider it seriously.

Reply to  Mark Bofill
September 9, 2014 1:07 pm

Perhaps “Big Oil”, coal and gas should just go on strike for a few days. No output, no fuel, no power, no chemicals etc. Maybe that would bring home to the world just how important hydrocarbons are.

James Bull
Reply to  Keitho
September 9, 2014 11:47 pm

I’ve suggested this on several occasions when the EPA or some such organisation has gone after trying to regulate coal fired power stations to death, let those running them shut down for a day or two and let the wind and solar take up the strain then people would see the “green dream” for what it is.
James Bull

A. Smith
September 9, 2014 11:37 am

“There’s no debate” – that’s what you say when you clearly don’t have a case.

A. Smith
Reply to  A. Smith
September 9, 2014 11:40 am

whoops…. left out a part… “there’s no debate” – that’s what you say when you clearly don’t have a case after spending umpteen billion taxpayer dollars to develop a case.

September 9, 2014 11:45 am

‘There’s no debate’ sounds exactly like the kind of thing a schoolyard bully says when he knows he’s wrong but refuses to admit it to others.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 9, 2014 11:54 am

Obama as a “schoolyard bully”? OMG, now that’s funny. I still want to see the fight between him and Putin… Shortest fight ever!

Reply to  Eric Sincere
September 9, 2014 12:02 pm

Eh… as much as I appreciate that visual, I think the ‘there’s no debate’ comment was being attributed to one of Cap’n Cook’s 97 Minions of Gloom.

Reply to  Eric Sincere
September 9, 2014 12:26 pm

The little “o” has already had his backside kicked by Putin, well and truly..

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Eric Sincere
September 9, 2014 10:09 pm

Please don’t call Cook a captain. The real Captain Cook, the one who circumnavigated Australia and mapped it, was an awesome man, worthy of the title of Captain. This other Cook you’re referring to, is not.

Reply to  Eric Sincere
September 10, 2014 7:25 am

I didn’t call him Captain, nor would I.
I did, however put him on par with a cartoon character used to promote over-sugared breakfast cereal. And I’ll gladly do so, again.

September 9, 2014 11:53 am

Civil disobedience is always on the table for the radical left. They crave it.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gregory
September 9, 2014 7:12 pm

Civil disobedience is on the table because of the millions of useful idiots on hand that have been anesthetized in the education system designed for them by the radical left. Abbie Hoffman’s term “designer brains” comes to mind. The irony is that these unfortunate combatants are the most obedient members of our society. A friend of a person I know actually is an employee of an activist enterprise that rounds these extras up, hands them signs and gives them slogan to shout.

Reply to  Gregory
September 10, 2014 10:56 pm

If it goes the way of those misled college students during the “War on Wallstreet” protests they will look even more ignorant. BTW the ongoing protests against any pipe line of any sort up in Canada seems to be largely ignored by the media but it is still happening. (actually less now that winter showed up in Calgary and other parts of Alberta, 20 cm of snow!)

September 9, 2014 11:53 am

The constant repetition of “there’s no debate” reminds me of Apparatchiks trying to reassure their base:
“Everything is under control, don’t worry!”
Okay cool, thanks
“Seriously, we’ve got it handled”
Got it. Again, thanks
“Don’t panic! Its all good”
I know, you already said that
“It really is under control. Promise”
uh-huh…hey Honey?! Is the car gassed up? Grab the kids and the bugout bags!

Reply to  Fen
September 9, 2014 12:03 pm

If I could see any administration hiring Baghdad Bob as a spokesman, it’s this one.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 9, 2014 1:50 pm

Not even Bob would stoop that low.

September 9, 2014 11:57 am

Leftist thugs just want a pretext for violence. Today it’s global warming, tomorrow it’ll be something else.

September 9, 2014 11:57 am

And then there could be a counter-revolution

Reply to  Geoff
September 9, 2014 1:21 pm

There’s an interesting article on Daily Galaxy
Turns out CO2 is necessary for life (who’d have guessed?) and if plate tectonics didn’t keep recycling it into the atmosphere we’d be toast. Well actually starved and frozen but kinda like toast.
So hooray for volcanoes and stuff. Course cow farts and coal are bad.

Reply to  Expat
September 9, 2014 7:24 pm

CO2 is a warm snuggly blanket gas that keeps up warm on winter nights

Svend Ferdinandsen
September 9, 2014 12:02 pm

All those actions they set up is just -actions. If the problem was consideret serious, they would direct the actions to some prioritized matters. But they dont. Instead they say: The president must act, the government must be pressed to take the problem serious and so on forever. Not a single hint of the most important thing to do. How should the government find out what they believe is important?
And by the way, what ever the government do, there will be many that think the actions should be otherwise, so the protests can continue.

Will Nelson
September 9, 2014 12:05 pm

“Climate Insurgency: A Strategy Against Doom”
With a little more effort they will be the doom they are imagining they are preventing. Or one man’s doom is another man’s climate activism. Or we have to destroy it to save it.

Reply to  Will Nelson
September 10, 2014 11:01 pm

That, “or we have to destroy it to save it” kind of sounds like Nancy Pelosi. And that worked well didn’t it?

September 9, 2014 12:05 pm

The fact is that less and less people are signing up.

Gil Dewart
September 9, 2014 12:07 pm

Sounds like another half-baked scheme to derail working people from their legitimate goals.

Tom in Denver
September 9, 2014 12:13 pm

Jeremy Brecher, you really want to strike a blow against fossil fuels. Try turning off your natural gas and electricity this winter in Connecticut. Oh and no cars, no buying anything that is made from, or transported by, fossil fuels.
Please enjoy the Stone Age!

Reply to  Tom in Denver
September 9, 2014 10:09 pm

Wasn’t golf invented with (hockey) sticks and rocks? At least he’ll have something to do. 🙂

September 9, 2014 12:16 pm

Traditional methods for fighting global warming have proven fruitless.

Fruitless? Not only has “global warming” been brought to a dead stop and headed for a reverse, but the term itself has been nearly expurgated from our vocabulary.
Mission Accomplished! Pat yourselves on the back, and go the @#$% away.

Reply to  JJ
September 9, 2014 12:31 pm

Not guite JJ, scientifically the battle is pretty much won, but politically is still won’t die. The Progressive Green regulations are still being enacted. The EPA is instituting new CO2 limiting regulations, and the President and J. Kerry are busy trying to get an aggressive mandate from the UN they can have the EPA dictate as law next year. Unless we can wrest control of the Senate from Harry Reid and the Dems this fall, this train will still be traveling full steam ahead for years to come. It does ZERO good to win the science battle if you lose the regulatory battle.. (it was never really about science in the first place).

September 9, 2014 12:16 pm

I would like to know the last time the left tried civil obedience. For an ideology that claims ‘war is not answer” they war against absolutely everything. Probably missing the irony/hypocrisy gene.

Jeff L
Reply to  LogosWrench
September 9, 2014 12:26 pm

Wouldn’t that be the “Occupy Wall St” movement a few years back? I would suspect climate based social disobedience would be about as successful (accomplished nothing)

Reply to  Jeff L
September 9, 2014 1:01 pm

I had a conversation with a self-described “left-wing zealot” who was at the time a sign carrying Occupy Wall Street demonstrator. The misinformation regarding “Global Warming/Climate Change” that she described was almost what we skeptics would term “textbook”:
Polar Bears becoming extinct, Arctic and Antarctic Ice totally melting, Global Warming continuing (this was 2 years ago), increased number of hurricanes with them becoming stronger, etc. Oh, and the big one: “Al Gore said.” (No, I am not making this up.)
They may be low information but they are the loud, squeaky wheel, that’s for sure.

Reply to  Jeff L
September 9, 2014 1:16 pm

Heh – Occupy the Climate.
But seeing the messes they made of the previous places they occupied, we would have a real climate crisis when they were through with it.

Reply to  Jeff L
September 9, 2014 3:33 pm

Squeaky wheel don’t always get grease, sometime they get replaced.

Reply to  LogosWrench
September 9, 2014 12:32 pm

And let’s not forget their constant insistance that diversity must always exist.

September 9, 2014 12:19 pm

Well, we certainly can’t argue with Alternet’s editorial opinion on the AGW-scam, at least not on Alternet, since the basis of AGW-alarmism, demonstrated by John Cook et al at skepticalscience, the UK Guardian, NPR, Huffington Post, and liberal news media in general, is fascism, and the right to acknowledge scientific truth that contradicts their self-serving political disinformation agenda is evidence of a mental illness the psychopathic banker cabal defines as oppositional defiance disorder, and comments that reflect this are destroyed as diligently as email communications that reveal the intentional fraud that’s the basis of the fascist AGW -alarmist agenda.
The real enemy of AGW-alarmism is truth.

September 9, 2014 12:22 pm

I forgot to include Bill Moyers and Noam Chomsky – sorry.

September 9, 2014 12:22 pm

Mindless Zombies. It’s hard to have a debate with the mindless followers of the climate cult. They tend to say stupid things like 97%of scientists agree, or it’s the scientific consensus. They don’t know how idiotic it is to say these things.

September 9, 2014 12:24 pm

This is what I posted on Alternet…
The inherent flaw in this argument is that the solutions provided by the anthropogenic climate change community are themselves flawed. You simply cannot operate a civilization of 9 billion people on solar panels and wind turbines. You must find a way to replace the 4.7 BILLION gallons of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas consumed every day. Not only this but we must extend that energy to a higher level so that the rest of our planetary brothers and sisters can obtain the same level of civilization enjoyed in the west.
If you read the pronouncements of the Chinese and Indian governments they utterly reject (while giving lip service to your position) curtailing the advancement of their own societies nor should they. This is another hole in the reasoning of this article.
If the climate change community was truly concerned both about the planet and the welfare of their fellow global citizens, you would advocate the development of new energy sources, high density ones like fusion. Say that we have been working on this for decades without a breakthrough? Well you are partly right, but for the wrong reasons. We have never provided the level of effort necessary to literally harness the power of the sun, which is our only long term solution to our energy problem.
Having plentiful energy goes a long way to solving the other problems. However, to truly build a 21st century prosperous global civilization we must look beyond just the resources of the Earth, which are confined close to the surface, but beyond, to the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. It is time to build not just a prosperous planetary civilization, we also must build an interplanetary one. The resources of just the vicinity of the Earth, Moon, and Mars contains thousands of times the resources obtainable by digging holes in the ground on the Earth.
There are solutions, but until the neo-luddites are purged from the community, we will make no progress, and should they prevail, a dark age of a thousand years will be the result. I for one do not support the collective suicide of billions of my fellow planetary citizens…

Reply to  denniswingo
September 9, 2014 12:44 pm

And it wasn’t deleted? Great! I’m glad, and it’s an excellent discussion.

Reply to  denniswingo
September 9, 2014 1:25 pm

You have a lot of good points Dennis. Until the conditions rise to the boiling point on resources and crowding, man will stay on Earth and that is suicide for all of Earth’s species over the long term.
I would tend to simply say malthusians rather than luddites or neo-luddites. Also, there would never be billions of suicides as most people, even third worlders are not that stupid. The suicide types number probably only in the hundreds or at most thousands. Getting rid of the rest of the 9 billion people requires efficient techniques of organized mass murder. Warfare simply is too inefficient. Unfortunately, the number of malthusians around far exceed the numbers who are actually willing to commit suicide. The rest tend to be cowards and also think their directives should not apply to themselves. That eliminates any possible opportunity to let them ‘lead by example’.
The reason I use small numbers for the fanatics is that unlike the terrorist problems we face today, there hasn’t been a full indoctrination yet achieved by the green slime and the absence of a god and an afterlife in their ‘religion’ leaves them with the problem of if they die creating a garden of Eden on Earth, they won’t be around to enjoy their new ‘paradise’.

Reply to  cba
September 9, 2014 2:54 pm

It is collective suicide in the sense that it is a knowing walk into the depths that after a certain point, cannot be recalled.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  denniswingo
September 9, 2014 2:16 pm

I agreed with you right up to where you started into the, “we must look beyond just the resources of the Earth, which are confined close to the surface, but beyond, to the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. It is time to build not just a prosperous planetary civilization, we also must build an interplanetary one.”
That part (in quotations) is delusional in my opinion. We have one home. Here on planet Earth. The resources on asteroids and the moon are pipe dreams, the stuff of science fiction. You advocacy for them shows a poor grasp on the engineering difficulties and lack of technology to overcome the extreme difficulties of those environments on man and machine. The longterm space missions, even to Mars, are the realm of robots and robotic surveyor spacecraft. And the technology for mining and large scale mineral exploitation even on the moon is a century or more away. There is nothing on the moon or an asteroid that can’t be more cheaply and with less carbon and energy footprint be mined from the Earth.
Even your claims of fusion are also delusional. Liquid fueled thorium reactors are the best and only hope man has in the foreseeable future to break our society’s dependence on hydrocarbon-based chemical energy.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 3:03 pm

That part (in quotations) is delusional in my opinion.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as a professional that works in this field every single day I must disagree.
You advocacy for them shows a poor grasp on the engineering difficulties and lack of technology to overcome the extreme difficulties of those environments on man and machine.
I assure you that I do have that grasp, and have been working on these designs for many years. I have written a book on the subject, and was a contributor to a book published by the National Defense University on the subject.
None of your assessments even come close to the reality of the situation. We are close enough to this now that just two weekends ago I was part of a team architecting the beginnings of lunar industrialization, sponsored by one of the largest venture capital firms in Silicon Valley.
Even your claims of fusion are also delusional. Liquid fueled thorium reactors are the best and only hope man has in the foreseeable future to break our society’s dependence on hydrocarbon-based chemical energy.
I do agree that molten salt reactors are the best near term choice and advocate for them constantly. However, knowing the audience at Alternet the way I do, my response would have been bogged down in the anti-nuclear FUD that many of not most who inhabit that site possess. As far as fusion goes, again you have no idea of what you are speaking about. The biggest problem in this area was the over promises of those who started this research decades ago. To successfully harness the suns energy from fusion is a monumental task that requires a Manhattan project class attention. It can be done, it will be done, that is unless the neo-luddites get sufficiently in our way.
You write with such assurance of your position, and disdain for those who have different opinions, mine in this case are based upon three decades of professional work in the field. This is pretty much the way that the neo luddites think, something you might wish to ponder.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 5:13 pm

do those investors believe that space mining venture will return a few kilos of mythical Unobtanium?
even if one uses robots to tug a nickel-iron asteroid into low earth orbit for mining, there is no real shortages of those metals that would pay for the venture. Indeed even if you found a small megatonne pure Pt asteroid, if you brought it to Earth Pt futures would plummet on the increased supply. The nasa moonrocks are worthless on mineral basis. He-3 is the only rare thing there on the moon worth something on Earth. And making it from reactor tritium would be cheaper than lunar harvesting.
And who wants to live on Mars? Yes there are plenty of Earthlings I think should be sent there, but that’s a pipe dream. And Zero g living sucks the life out of a human, lost bone and muscle, diabetes susceptibility, edema, radiation hazards, constant fear of micrometeorites.. Yuck.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 8:46 pm

I for one, thank you for your efforts. Keep on pushing and never mind the Luddites.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 8:53 pm

Joe, these investors are looking to both the short and long term. There are many Silicon Valley types that have significant resources who are interested in putting them toward long term space development for the benefit of all humanity. Take a look at SpaceX. It was founded by the founder of PayPal, Elon Musk, and has several venture capital firms onboard as investors. SpaceX has been around for 11 years now without going public. The investors in SpaceX, including Elon, recognize that true market disruption in an industry as mature as aerospace takes time.
There are many companies being funded in the short term who are coming up with marvelous plans. One company, called the Climate Corp was recently sold to Monsanto for almost a billion dollars. Their product? An algorithm that made the adjustment for insurance losses automated, based upon images from Landsat. There are several companies, from Skybox, recently acquired by Google for $500m dollars, to Planetlabs, funded with tens of millions of dollars in venture capital, that are building small spacecraft for remote sensing. These imaging systems are addressing the issue of persistent surveillance and economic intelligence on a global basis. These portent to bring transparency to the marketplace for economic data on a global basis. From counting cars in a Walmart parking lot, to monitoring mining and industrial production, these are disruptive and transformative technologies, brought about by the miniaturization of electronics.
This brings me to your comment. Your objections are obsolete and so far in the past that they are akin to complaining about the cost of buggy whip manufacturing after the interstates were constructed. Your straw man argument has nothing to do with the innovations driven by terrestrial technology that is now being transferred back into the space sector. Three D printing, additive manufacturing, energy production, and resource processing technologies are transforming the way that we look at the economic development of space. We will be publishing some things on this subject soon enough. This may very well help fusion as well as it may very well be that we perfect fusion on the Moon before on the Earth. But that is another story….
So, your comments are obsolete, your understanding of the investment community and its long term goals is nil, and the naysaying is getting a bit boring.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 9:19 pm

please, don’t rely on Elon Musk as an example. All his business ventures after his paypal fortune stake depend on milking the public teat. In 20 years the US federal government won’t have a dime to spare on pie-in-sky space programs unless the big 3 entitlements are reformed very soon.
If you’ve got a rich multimillionaire on the hook to pay for your paper studies, good on ya. Pays the bills and buys your beans. Maybe makes for nice writeup in Sunday magazine or Popular Science for kids.
But unless someone can invent that FTL drive, manned space travel beyond LEO is a waste of resources. Even travel it high, near-light speeds if attainable would be like living at the target end of the LHC. And a moon base produces nothing of great vaue in a return to investors. There may be water in south polar deep crater shadows, but the technical difficuties make accessing it ungodly expensive and risky. Water at the lunar South pole does what? allows for maybe a base that does what? Nothing we need here on Earth. The moon provides one, and only one, vital role here on Earth. Its gravity. That provides tidal effects and spin precession stability. Beyond that it could be a pile of neutronium for all that really matters.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 9:51 pm

Dennis, you shift gears now. Your original post talked fancifully of interplanetary colonization and interstellar travel. That’s SciFi.
Now you talk of LandSat algorithms and Earth observing missions to help the free market become more efficient.
I wholly and enthusiastically subscribe to the latter. The former is as I said in my first post, “A pipe dream.”
Don’t blow smoke up my…

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 10, 2014 8:02 am

Dennis, you shift gears now.
Actually I did not. You have to crawl before you fly and this is a free market approach, with free market companies, of whom many of the CEO’s and investors are all working toward the economic development of the solar system.
In my chapter for a book on Space Power Theory, published by the National Defense University I coined a definition for your entire outlook. It is called the “geocentric mindset”. In this mindset you only look at the Earth and its immediate environs, and never consider how to integrate the greater whole into human society. This is EXACTLY the mistake that the entire AGW and Limits to Growth crowd makes.
One of my mentor’s Dr. David C. Webb was on the board of directors of the group that funded the study that became the book Limits to Growth. In their study and book, space was as casually dismissed as your exposition. Dr. Webb, who knew many of the greats in space at that time, saw otherwise and began his quest to continue to educate people about space. Many of the CEO’s and people working in what is called newspace today were educated by his efforts.
Anthony’s site is based upon the premise of informed skepticism, where logic, science, and numbers rule the game. If you are truly interested in this subject I would suggest learning about it, rather than assuming the dismissive tone, based upon ignorance of the subject, that you currently project.
As far as Elon goes, most of his revenue today is based upon commercial launches to GEO orbit, a market that he is disrupting with the Falcon 9 1.1. He has plenty of financial reserves if needed in his other public companies and from my knowledge, NASA is only one of many customers. It is true that he leveraged government dollars, but at the same time, the service that he provides NASA costs less than 1/10th of the amount that an Aerospace Corporation study said that it would cost NASA to provide a similar service through standard contracting mechanisms. That kind of efficiency with taxpayers money I can live with.

September 9, 2014 12:27 pm

Isn’t it time for all fossil-fuel based energy provider to go on strike for a week or so? Just to teach these idiots a lesson about the foundation of our and their everyday life.

Reply to  jaypan
September 9, 2014 12:56 pm

I’d prefer they alone would give up fossil fuels for a week a month, driving down demand and reducing cost for the rest of us.
Unfortunately the reality is those that support global warming the most are also the ones with the largest fossil-fuel based footprint so to speak.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Alx
September 9, 2014 1:52 pm

The irony is of course that lower fossil fuel prices makes renewables ever more uncompetitive. So if everyone stopped driving big SUVs and trucks, fuel prices would fall with falling demand, and the economic incentives for buying expensive electric vehicles, and more generation capacity gets even worse.
If everyone is the US started paying $9+/gal for gas like Europe, then the contraction in the US economy from a loss of consumer’s discretionary income, would initiate an economic depression in the business cycle. But that is where the environmentalists and socialists like Obama want to take us. It would hasten the US conversion to socialism, or even outright national socialism, for the ruling left-wing political class hold on power.

September 9, 2014 12:53 pm

“There’s no debate.” – Obama
Obama has the amazing ability to sound eloquent while making the most incredibly idiotic statements. If he keeps this up, more and more people will start to see him as an idiot instead of the smartest president ever.
Mr Obama might want to know that not even Occupy Wall Street mentions Global Warming in their writings. In their view it is simply an additional financial mechanism to help the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful or become more rich and powerful.

Reply to  Alx
September 9, 2014 1:07 pm

Well, is being the “smartest President ever” a meaningful title when it is bestowed by the “lowest information ever” supporter?
Just askin’.

Reply to  JohnWho
September 9, 2014 1:34 pm

I didn’t used to believe in zombies. Low information doesn’t seem to cover what we are seeing. It’s more like no information and no ability to process information and no apparent capability of rational thought. … IE Zombies!

Reply to  Alx
September 9, 2014 8:53 pm

Jimmy Carter was considered by many the smartest president – and one of the worst presidents. The job needs more than brains, it needs balls. Regan had them. Thacher had them in spades. What can be said about Obama is that Michelle has them.

Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 1:40 pm

My hope is that it snows, and snows hard, on 21st September 2014 in NYC.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 1:58 pm

the 8-14 day CPC outlook for temperature:
and for precip:
Here’s hoping the forecasting models to converge on a 20-21 September polar vortex for the NorthEast. That would be great fun watching the wamista Zombies explain that away as simply weather.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2014 2:33 pm

Superimposing those two images shows that the only place blue (colder than average) overlaps the green (above average precip) in the DC to NYC corridor for the time frame of the People’s Climate March.
Evidence there is a God… with a sense of humor 🙂

Doug Proctor
September 9, 2014 1:45 pm

Wait until these socialist neo-revolutionaries decide to target the current administration on other “populace supported” crusades.
This is a Pandora’s Box of extra-legal street action. It is the pre-totalitarian chaos of Russia, Central and South America.
They understand not what they do. They call not for reason in policies but the heavy hand of official and limited concerns being thrust upon the nation without recourse or local modification. The Greens will not be in charge; bureaucrats will be. The Green philosophy will be a tool, not something to direct policy.
Once more Stalin’s “useful idiots” are handing over the keys to their own jailers.

Cynical Scientst
September 9, 2014 2:23 pm

As I understand it, Obama doesn’t do his own tweets. Is that correct?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Cynical Scientst
September 9, 2014 2:38 pm

Obama’s tweets come from his CoS, after vetting through a Sr. Political advisor (probably V Jarrett) and his legal counsel.

September 9, 2014 2:24 pm

So the street thuggery of Occupy Wall Street plus the kookiness of the climate obsessed. What can go wrong with that?

Rick K
September 9, 2014 2:42 pm

Hmmm… “constitutional insurgency” sounds like an oxymoron.
Sorta like “hope and change.”
You only get one… not both.

September 9, 2014 2:45 pm

I’m going to the demonstration with some friends to protest for human rights. We plan on making very large FREE LEOPOLDO LÓPEZ signs. If I were you I would make my own sign and join the march. They can be fun.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 9, 2014 9:25 pm

I a realist. I would hang at the very back of the parade march. My sign would be stunningly unimaginative but true, “The End is Here.”

September 9, 2014 3:18 pm

Somehow them acting like a bunch of zombies just fits 😉
FWIW, I’ve been at some rallies and some of the time on each side. On the Cops side, they wait for the good folks to go home, then when the rabble rousing starts and the thinned out crowd is just the hard core trouble makers, they make arrests.
Oddly, the present move from debate, to no-debate, to loud and insulting and now to quasi-malicious ‘demonstrations’ sure seems to fit that pattern.
The good folks have gone home. Only the strident are left. They are advocating for mean and potentially illegal and damaging activities. All we need now are the cops to do their job.

Gunga Din
September 9, 2014 3:29 pm

The Climate Science Zombie Apocalypse is coming

I think calling them “zombies” is a bit over the top.
Zombies are brain-dead.
These guys aren’t brain-dead.
They just don’t know how to use it anymore.

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 9, 2014 4:07 pm

Well, perhaps their brains are dead to them?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 9, 2014 9:27 pm

All that will be missing will be red arm bands on their left upper arm.

September 9, 2014 3:30 pm

“Brecher argues that it’s time for green activists to address the social and economic impacts of climate change and for unions to start taking global warming seriously.”
Unions are corporations. The objective of corporations is to make money. Unions will take GW seriously when shown how they can make money on it.

Mark Bofill
September 9, 2014 3:49 pm

Denniswingo said,

September 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm
That part (in quotations) is delusional in my opinion.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as a professional that works in this field every single day I must disagree.

Sorry I missed this. I’m emphatically with Dennis on this. It never ceases to amaze me that people in climate science will sit all day and accept dwindling resources and increasing populations as an inevitability and somehow still see no value or urgency in getting humanity off world at the same time.
We will colonize off-world. It’s strictly a question of when.

Reply to  Mark Bofill
September 9, 2014 6:32 pm

The left hate the idea of some of us getting off this planet, because then they can’t boss us around any more. They want Global Government and Sustainability to keep us trapped here, because the speed of light destroys any chance of interstellar government, or even one single government across the solar system. You can’t boss around people you’ll take years, decades or millenia to reach.
The reason they’ll do absolutely anything to keep the Global Whatever They’re Calling It Today scam going is because this is it for Socialism. In a hundred years, we’ll either be living ‘sustainably’ in caves, being bossed around by Al Gore III, or living among the stars, where freedom from them is just one engine burn away.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  MarkG
September 9, 2014 9:40 pm

I’m as right as one can get, and not be a Tea Party fringer. But I see no reason to think man ever has any chance to spend long periods beyond earth. I will fight to the death to stop someone like AlGore, BHO, or the UN from destroying the US constitution.
I read all the SciFi out there as a kid and teenager. The only one that maybe has any reality as maybe doable by a very very advanced civilization is Rendezvous with Rama by AC Clarke. And there the alien life on Rama is recreated from genetic patterns.
But I fundamentally subscribe to Dr Fermi’s paradox as instructive, “Where are they?”

Reply to  MarkG
September 9, 2014 10:40 pm

Either we get off this planet, or we die. It only takes one Greenist fanatic with a home bioengineering lab who believes ‘humanity is a cancer’, and most of us are gone. And with this kind of insane rhetoric across the media, that’s going to happen before long. OK, there’ll be survivors who got lucky with natural immunity, but they’re unlikely to be able to restart human civilization and get a second chance to leave.
As for Fermi’s Paradox, the answer seems pretty obvious: we’re the first. Rendezvous With Rama was the 1970s idea of an advanced alien civilization, and seems pretty tame compared to what we could likely do in a few thousand years.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Mark Bofill
September 9, 2014 9:28 pm

to where?????

September 9, 2014 5:06 pm

That course of action couldn’t possibly end badly..

Steve in SC
September 9, 2014 7:06 pm

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

September 9, 2014 7:45 pm

Brecher: “Let’s you and them fight. I’ll…I’ll stand over there and cheer you on.”

September 10, 2014 2:16 am

Mr Brecher seems to suffer under the illusion that people think AGW is a serious problem. All surveys put this issue at the bottom of a long list of concerns.
People will, at the most, pay lip-service to Global Warming (TM), but are not willing to spend anything on it, let alone hit the streets in an insurgency.

lawrence Cornell
September 10, 2014 3:47 am

September 9, 2014 at 9:40 pm
“I’m as right as one can get, and not be a Tea Party fringer.”
Excuse me ! When we are not being called “Deniers”, we prefer to be called “Teabaggers”. It’s a term that makes us all giggle here in the looney bin where critical thinking and common sense are now considered racist pathology by the popular kids.

September 10, 2014 5:11 am

The actions of that MA DA who dropped charges against a group of AGW activists makes more sense now.

September 10, 2014 6:02 am

So far, the global warming debate has been the almost perfect thing to teach us how stupid people can be. But if the craziness and polarization gets much worse, it would qualify as a sign of the “End Times”.

September 10, 2014 6:04 am

Sorry not to take it seriously, however when I read the alternet piece about civil disobedience I channelled Cartman from Southpark and thought…
“Cool, I get to shoot hippies!”
[note – this is a well known joke on that show, so I’ll allow it, but for the record WUWT does not condone shooting anyone – Anthony]

September 10, 2014 7:03 am

Even the egregious Guardian has finally admitted the existence of the ‘pause’ – with a whole shedload of excuses and flannel – and that it could continue for some years yet.
Some of the comments are hilarious.
Very soon now it is going to become obvious to even the thickest Green buffoon that the climate is in fact cooling.
It will be interesting to see how the High Priests of AGW manage to spin that.

September 10, 2014 7:07 am

Climate Zombies is an apt description. They are infected with the virus of global warming ideology, their brains have stopped functioning, and they have a voracious appetite for consuming (the resources and production) of the non-infected. Also, no matter what facts you shoot at them, they are impervious.

September 10, 2014 7:55 am

“There is no debate.” – translation – “I know what I know; don’t bother me with facts.”

September 10, 2014 9:10 am

The Rebellion to Save Planet Earth: Why Civil Disobedience Could Be Our Last, Best Hope

First four words are OK. Then needs correcting:
The Rebellion to Save Us from oppressive and dictatorial government: Why Civil Disobedience Could Be Our Last, Best Hope
There, fixed it for ’em.

September 11, 2014 10:49 am

Who says the earth needs ‘saving?’ What are they saving it for; a rainy day?
The 3rd rock from the sun has been around for about 4.5 billion years. Modern humans have been around for 200,000 years or so. Face it; we are really late to the party. And the earth will still be here long after humans are gone. It doesn’t need us to ‘save it.’
If the rule is ‘Survival of the fittest’ then we should be looking over our shoulders at all the other life forms on this planet that could bump us off. Where’s the march against the all those viruses that have been out to get us?

September 11, 2014 9:17 pm

They are not zombies. They are busy rational people who are merely allowing rogue charlatans to bootjack the formerly pristine sciences. To the extent that they get angry about a lack of layperson adherence to scientific consensus, they are morally uprighteous. Only by destroying the academics, all of them, to the last Mann, who supported a fraud, can you then claim to make fun of them. For where did any of you, individually, loudly CRY OUT: FRAUD!!!
Very few of you did.

%d bloggers like this: