More Than 310 Thousand People with Skewed Priorities Flood New York

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.

MyWorld2015 Poll Results Sept 22 2014

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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The stupid shall not inherit the planet. All things pass. They were yesterday’s news; now they are olds.

Chuck L

It seems to me that they already have looking at the pics from the march.

Tammie Lee de Cortez Haynes

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.

Nigel S

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.

Tammie Lee de Cortez Haynes

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:comment image


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:
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…

Steve P

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!

lawrence Cornell

Because they are told lies by other idiots ? Good example. LOL

lawrence Cornell

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”.

lawrence Cornell

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.

lawrence Cornell

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.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

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.

Dr Paul mackey

There was not such a turnout in the UK….

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

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.

George Lawson

Don’t expect a rational reply from the irrationality!

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

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.

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!.

Village Idiot

Nice, though predictable, continuation of the hatchet job started yesterday:


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.

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.

Pamela Gray

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.

Joseph Bastardi

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.

Robert B

“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,


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 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.

William Hudson

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. .

Alberta Slim

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.

Pamela Gray

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.

Paul Hildebrandt

do, not “due” with time.

michael hart

“..the awfulness of AGW will only become prominent in those people’s lives a decade or so hence.”

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.

ferd berple

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.

ferd berple

Here is the tidal graph for Pt Atkinson. This gauge is situated on bedrock on West Vancouver. Again no sea level rise.

ferd berple

Victoria BC. Sea levels unchanged for 100 years:


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.

Larry in Texas

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).

Larry in Texas

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.

michael hart

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.

Mr Bliss

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.

Alberta Slim

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.

Jeff Mitchell

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.

ferd berple

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.

Actually there is one useful ‘renewable’ and it is hydroelectricity. Its usefulness is why Greens oppose it.

Firewood is renewable

Jeff Alberts
I’ve heard it even grows on trees.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia



Make yourself a strong cup of coffee and watch:


I don’t care that it’s in New York (where 95% of the people live perpetually with their heads up their a@@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.

Mike T

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.

Gareth Phillips

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.

Gareth Phillips

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.

Larry in Texas

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).

M Courtney

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.”

lawrence Cornell

REALITY. That’s why.

david smith

“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.

Sam Hall

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.

Bell Phillips

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.

Billy Liar

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!

Owen in GA

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.

Mario Martini

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


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.

Pamela Gray

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.


Pamela Gray
September 22, 2014 at 5:26 am
Solar need not apply. The oceanic-atmospheric teleconnected system is quite capable of causing up and down trends under a relatively steady state sun.

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.


I liked the huge turnout at Geraldton Western Australia in the rain. 23 idiots 3 children and a dog. Population of Geraldton 36,000. Tony Abbott the Australian Prime Minister will not be attending the U.N. Climate Summit 2014 he has better things to do.

That’s probably a truer estimate of the number of people genuinely concerned. Away from the hype and the big event only a couple of dozen people turn out to protest from a population of 36,000.
About the number I used to get for the annual general meeting of our local community council. So what’s with “the greatest threat to mankind ever”? Yawn!


And better things to do that waste the taxpayers money on a rehashed 19th century theory that has been debunked by facts.


“…paid to protest…”
The point is that this is not just a spontaneous gathering of people. I suspect that someone with considerable “community organizing” skill is behind it all, getting all these “folks” to show up and get so hyped up about impending CO2-induced catastrophes, when getting hyped up about ISIS and other impending global security threats would make more sense.

Jonny Old Boy

funny how these people do not march to demand a control on world population ,,, 6 Billion a decade ago just turned into 7 billion ,,, when are people that ‘care about the planet’ going to wake up to this disaster we are walking into as a species….

Alan Robertson

Campaigning to reduce the world’s populations, are you?
You are either claiming that other people must not live, or you must include yourself in the group to be reduced. Prove the strength of your convictions.
Are there tall buildings where you live?
Lead the way.


Pamela Gray

Okay, I accept your challenge. Forget tall buildings. Leaves a carbon mess on the ground. Get yourself and any offspring snipped. Come on. Snip snip.


The planet could easily support double the current population. If the rest of the world were to increase it’s agricultural productivity to US levels, Tripling the population would be no trouble at all.
On the other hand, even the UN believes the world’s population is going to top out before 2050 and start falling rapidly.

Gary Pearse

The pop of the world could jump into Lake Superior with 14sq m (140 sq feet) each to tread water in; 80 billion could be cozy with 10sq feet. Now that would be a protest! Population is not a problem, although it would be nice if the haters decided to remove themselves from the gene pool.

Mainly because it isn’t.
And will be less so if we stop trying to keep the undeveloped countries undeveloped.
The UN itself claims that the earth’s population will peak at around 9 billion by mid-century and start to decline thereafter. Even at present we could give every human being currently alive ¼-acre of land in Australia and still have Tasmania left over not to mention the rest of the world. Of course it would help if we stopped using prime agrcultural land to grow diesel and stopped cutting down forests to feed power stations.

John Endicott

Jonny Old Boy, I think you hit on a very important issue, perhaps you should lead by example…..


Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 at 3:52 am
“funny how these people do not march to demand a control on world population”
They demand socialism, which is the most effective population control the world has witnessed.

You assert that socialism is “the most effective population control the world has witnessed”. Yes, and it is good to be able to agree with you for a change.
The reason socialism is so good at population control is that socialism grows wealth and improves affluence. And affluence reduces population.
There are several reasons why affluence reduces population. Of most importance is that poor people need large families as ‘insurance’ to care for them at times of illness and old age. Affluent people can pay for that ‘insurance’ so do not need the costs of large families.
The result is that the indigenous populations of rich countries decline. But rich countries need to sustain population growth for economic growth so they need to import – and are importing – people from poor countries. Increased affluence in poor countries can be expected to reduce their population growth with resulting lack of people for import by rich countries.
Hence, the real foreseeable problem is population decrease; n.b. not population increase.
All projections and predictions indicate that human population will peak around the middle of this century and decline after that. So, we are confronted by the probability of ‘peak population’ resulting from growth of affluence around the world. Indeed, we have already passed ‘peak children’ and the number of people aged under 16 years has been declining since the start of this century.


“The reason socialism is so good at population control is that socialism grows wealth and improves affluence. And affluence reduces population.”
I know about the affluence that a good Gulag builds, Richard.

Yes, and socialists were rounded up and put in gulags by communists.
Fortunately soviet communism is gone.
Unfortunately a return of communism is threatened by events such as the ‘March’ which is the subject of this thread.
Very unfortunately there are ‘useful idiots’ whom communists confuse people about the immense differences between communism and socialism. And fascists also use ‘useful idiots’ to stealthily promote their politics by the same method.


September 22, 2014 at 2:55 pm
“Very unfortunately there are ‘useful idiots’ whom communists confuse people about the immense differences between communism and socialism. ”
Well, according to a certain Karl Marx, socialism turns into communism when the socialist state dissolves by itself as it is no more needed; when the New Human has been successfully created. This was never achieved in the Soviet Union, therefore it was a socialist state.
There is no such thing as a communist state; communism is stateless.
Yeah I know I will hear some variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy now…

You yet again demonstrate your ‘useful idiot’ status.
What Karl Marx claimed has been demonstrated to be wrong by subsequent history.
Socialists do NOT morph into communists as Marx claimed. You are free to be a good little Marxist if you want to be, but that does not entitle you to pretend that we socialists have to abide by the mistaken Marxist ideas you cite and promote.

Larry in Texas

“Socialism grows wealth and improves affluence. . . ”
Yeah, sort of like in France at this point, eh? Or Cuba? Or North Korea? Even Sweden, which encouraged its private sector to grow through reduced regulation and taxes in the 90s and 2000s? Europe is still in the ditch, fella, and it isn’t coming out likely any time soon until they abandon socialist methods, because as their working populations decrease their welfare states are going to come apart at the seams. But true believers like yourself refuse to believe anything they should easily see. I would characterize you as a useless idiot.

Suicide is the method to take this problem by the horns and solve it. Do it for Gaia

Steve Case

TRG September 22, 2014 at 2:55 am
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.

B I N G O !
It’s also notable that shelter and clothing are missing from the list.


Yes, in today’s economy, a lot of people have to choose between shelter and clothing, settling mostly on shelter. However, once the economy gets going again, clothiers should make a killing as people replace ragtag items.

A hungry man craves food. The full belly man can’t think of it. As for freedom, it’s not missed (or appreciated) ’til it’s gone.

Richatd Punko

climate change is the most important situation facing humanity this century. If we don’t fix it now this century will be last habital one.


That would be ‘habitable’, I assume.
Can you provided some evidence for this extraordinary assertion? I’ve seen none so far.


You can’t fix climate change. The climate will change the way it always has. The good news is that you probably don’t have to worry about warming. The bad news is that you may have to worry about significant cooling. That’s much worse. We know from the historical record what happens when the climate cools: famine, war and pestilence. The best protection against it seems to be prosperity. Cheap energy is one of the keys to prosperity, in fact it may be a necessary condition.
Anyway, the historical record is also clear that, no matter how bad the climate gets, humanity survives.


Very well and succinctly put.


1 degree of warming is going to render the planet uninhabitable?
Even the IPCC has abandoned any pretenses of trying to claim the climate is going to warm much more than 2 degrees.

Klaas de Waal

Really Richard? (Your name is Richard right? You just misspelled it didn’t you?)
Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself or did you hear it at the march where you handed out flyers for $50.-?


Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 at 4:06 am
“climate change is the most important situation facing humanity this century. If we don’t fix it now this century will be last habital one.”
If the world were actually warming, which it isn’t since 1998, Canada and Siberia would become habitable and arable; introducing an age of abundance the world has never seen in the last 10,000 years.
Why do you people hate Canadians and Russians?

If all the tundra were forests, think of the CO2 they would eat.

bit chilly

UN IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer said:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.
richatd,read the above statement and realise climate change is the least of our worries.

Chip Javert

“Climate change…most important situation…this century” – oh really? guess you haven’t met ISIS or Ebola.
Too bad.

ferd berple

name a single time in the past when climate did not change.


Have you ever heard about fault tolerant heap, stack overflow, and stupidity in computer science?
That is a really stupid thing!
Besides, the stupid way of wasting energy, goods, money and resources in this artificial non-sensitive way of life into which this society: consumerism society has engaged (NOT) all of us in a crazy way of life is really pounding the very foundations of the planet, this planet, the Earth, into which we all have to live (like it or not).
How many days would you survive breathing an atmosphere of sulphur dioxide?
Do you think a nuclear shelter would be a nice place to live into? For how long?
Just in case you do not know, look into a map of your choice where is the Atlantic Ridge, where is Iceland, and how the foundation of planet Earth was ‘built’ millions of years ago, and be sure to check the enormous tectonic scar in the bottom of the sea in the Arctic Ocean.
Oh! and check this articles:
There is a global emergency at Bardarbunga volcanic system, Iceland, right now, did’n your fault tolerant heap portable device send you any alert?


lernwareenglish, you’re not making sense.

hahahaha! Yea, the climate has never changed until this century. I love these neophytes.


Poor Richard. As you should know, assertions aren’t facts


22 Sept: Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Prince Charles: climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity
“Even in a world full of daunting perils and crises, it is hard to imagine anything that poses a greater challenge and opportunity for humanity,” he will say.
His comments come in an address to political and business leaders in New York ahead of major international climate change talks, convened by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon…
In a pre-recorded video address, the Prince shakes his head as he says: “We are running out of time – how many times have I found myself saying this over recent years?” …
In his video, Prince Charles says the world cannot “delay, regroup, prevaricate or wait for more and better information” and warns that tackling global warming will require “an unprecedented transformation of our communities, societies and lifestyles”.
He calls for renewable energy – such as wind farms and solar panels – to be “vastly scaled up”…


The people of the UK must pray God this idiot never assumes the throne!

King Canute, you know the guy that ranks higher than mere princes, ordered the tide to go out.
Just like Prince silly you mentioned, the tide didn’t listen, nor does the climate listen to Price Charles.
King Canute is down in history as using the tide to teach his followers a lesson that being royal does not make one infallible or omnipotent. Oh and dear old King Canute ruled a greater area than just Great Britain.

Mike H.



“Procrastinate” my liege…. “procrastinate.”
… although certain ones do prevaricate, equivocate and exaggerate as well…


You are right–and here’s an opinion piece that concludes the majority marching were for massive wealth redistribution:
It was a rally for “climate justice” in the old tradition of Occupy Climate. Just follow the money.

Charles Nelson

If I was a Warmist PR operative and I had an aerial shot of 400,000 people on a demo, I would have it ALL OVER the media.

That’s all they could manage? They were busing them in from all over the east coast (saw a bus leave from a {shock} Walmart parking lot in Richmond.
I guess lots of people had a spare day and could use the $50. In this economy,. we all can use the money.

Dave Ward

I notice that “Reliable energy at home” attracted almost 50% more votes…

I posted the following on the thread about paid marchers. I doubt that many were paid, but there were reportedly many organizations coordinated things, arranged for buses, etc.
An old friend who I heard from recently by email, a died-in-the-wool liberal, has this signature:

My activism at this point is centered on divestment of institutions from fossil fuels, and on stopping the pipelines (Keystone XL and the Northeast Pipeline), because solving the climate crisis is literally the sine qua non. I’m working with
— And notice: so far, over 95,000 people have signed Credo’s pledge of civil disobedience alone (there are other pledges) in connection with the pipeline.. Finally, finally, this movement is taking off. Better late than never!
I urge all to attend the NYC climate march on Sept. 21. . . [list of organizations like the Sierra Club, providing buses, follows]

Note the phrase, “My activism at this point. . .” This is someone who defines herself by the putative causes she attached herself to. I doubt if she has the slightest clue that the science behind organizations like is completely fraudulent. Doesn’t matter: “The movement is taking off.” It’s where the action is. She’s basically a camp follower.
/Mr Lynn

Correction: “. . .there were reportedly many organizations THAT coordinated things. . ”
I wonder why my posts are lately getting sent to moderation. /Mr L

Richard M

You used a bad word … fra..ulent.

Bill Illis

Let’s see some pictures of all the litter left behind.

Here’s just a sample. Note the Greenpeace cup, LOL!comment image

Mary Kay Barton

The “Environmentalists” at the Climate Change March Left a Gift Behind for New York

Claude Harvey

All this spitting back and forth doesn’t change the FACT that lots of misguided people showed up for the march, parade or whatever one wishes to call it. Score a hard-earned point for the climate change propaganda machine. Then move on to resume the tedious work of spreading the scientific truth of man-made global warming. One cannot credibly defend scientific facts on the one hand while denying the significance of a demonstrably large crowd having just gathered in New York on the other.

lawrence Cornell

Claude Harvey,
I fear you are correct. No matter the reality of the numbers, paid or not, it will be “useful” for propaganda to herd the “idiots” in the right direction.
Way too easy for them. The education system has failed us. Go ahead and call me a conspiracist , but I also believe that is AS PLANNED to make the masses more easy to fool. As we are seeing demonstrated today.

bit chilly

all hail the sheeple.

Steve P

Agreed. It is a fatal flaw to underestimate an adversary.
As I’ve written elsewhere here, and its cohorts have demonstrated their ability to organize and mobilize “over 1500” disparate groups for their so-called “ecosocialist” activities.
Tiny sampling of groups said to be participating in the People’s Climate March:
Congregation Kol Ami, Elkins Park, PA
Collectively Free
College Democrats of Massachusetts
College Green Magazine
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health
COMFORT ZONE documentary
Coming Clean
Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc.
Committee Against Plutonium Economics
Committee of Interns and Residents-SEIU
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
Common Dreams
Communications Workers of America
Communications Workers of America, District 1
Communications Workers of America, Local 1180
Communist Party USA
According to Benjamin Friedman, only about 40,000 Jewish Muscovite Bolsheviks were required to seize control of Russia.

There is very little reason to think that the Communications Workers of America weren’t paid to be there, unions do very little without being paid, and sometimes they do very little even while being paid.

There is so much influence in demonizing the rich.


The CWA is a big backer of wind mills.

Robert Austin

It just shows that Scottish journalist Charles Mackay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” is just as applicable to today as it was in 1841 when published.

Farrakhan had a “million man march” (if you are to believe his numbers). They could not muster that many even busing them in from all over the country.

Now they’re claiming 400,000 MARCH IN NY. It’s on HuffPo. Jeezuss. That 2.75X the population of Syracuse. New Year’s Eve gets that kind of crowd. This didn’t.


Insanity is contagious.


Insanity looked like it was contiguous in NY . . .

The usual suspects, commies, hippies, luddities, and fools

Steve P

Good video, worth a look, if for no other reason than to see the guy right at the start with the gas mask and white gloves; as the camera pans back, we get a brief peek at his hat, which reads:


Truly, you can’t make up this stuff. Vonnegut would be impressed.

It looks to me like they’ve pretty much jumped on the socialist anti-capitalist bandwagon and showed their true colors. Global Warming to Climate Change. They don’t care what the facts are. This movement is quite large.
But the irony is that even though socialism in various forms eventually runs out of other people’s money as economies slowly (or quickly) descend via entropy to the dismal bottom, one true socialist country is doing quite well without the horrors of high taxes and unemployment.
That country is Norway. It’s small which helps but it is dependent on oil revenue to keep its economy going.
So Climate Change fanatics who wish to destroy capitalism are on their way to destroying socialism instead.


I imagine the gross majority think CO2 is a pollutant and the world has been continually heating the past 20 years. When all people are inundated with are misrepresentations of the truth from their governments and media, its no wonder they feel this way. Sadly, individual research is the only way to have a well informed opinion, and I doubt there is much of that at all in those streets.


Good point–too bad there wasn’t a reporter (or contrarian) there to poll participants with a questionaire on their beliefs.


A good friend of mine maintains that the right to protest is the most important right we have in the free world. I tend to agree, but I also maintain that the right to mock protestors is just as important.


I would say that mocking protestors is also a form of protest.
What saddens me is the number of people who proclaim how important it is to protest, who would then turn around and ban any protests that they disagreed with.

It’s all free speech Jer0me. God bless America.


Assume the same techniques of data manipulation for this as for the temp data.


A note to those mentioning their proximity to the equator. I live 21° South of it, and I am still waiting to be able to don shorts comfortably again. I moved here because it was too cold further South this last decade, and I expect it to get cooler.

Pamela Gray

Those who succeed in pushing through mandated reductions in business ventures will get what they ask for. No one will have jobs thus no one will be using transportation of any kind. Fossil fuels will stay in the ground. Everybody will be ever so happy to sit around in squalid dense apartment buildings, communist-style. But tell me, watermelon-rich folks (such as Al Gore), who will be working your fields, washing your dishes, and wiping your butt in this imagined Shangri La?


Your friend in action:
This is powerful, take care

Pamela Gray

I’ve seen it. I have a headcold and I don’t want any more headache. I have one thing to say to Al Gore:

How does anyone know that 310-400,000 number’s accurate? What measure was used? The measurement system of public relations? Or the measurement system of impressivanatics? How about the measurement system of…?
Way back in the late 1970s the then Pope traveled to Chicago as part of a world tour. All the news services reported that a million people showed up. No one bothered to ask how a transportation system for a city of four million people could handle an additional one million people without freezing up solid. In reality an aerial count showed 75,000 people in Chicago’s Grant Park at the Pope’s visit there.
Remember all the Million Man Marches? They’re all gone aren’t they? They disappeared when that impressive number began to sound silly and self-defeating.
I’d take this 310-400,000 figure with a real grain of salt. Let’s see how it was derived first.

Are you serious? 35 spotters, eh? What, each of them counted approximately 10,000 people each, and there were no double, triple, or quadruple counts? And, of course, there was no personal enthusiasm adding to their counts?
Nonsense. What about an aerial gridded headcount? Can’t have that, can we? How about the additional buses pulling into NY’s massive bus station. How many additional schedules and lines were added to the Sunday public transportation schedules? What about garbage collection counts? – oh wait, they don’t collect garbage on Sunday.
Show me real numbers. Not a preconceived model.


Australian news media are quoting ~100,000 @ NY.

lawrence Cornell

I’m busy wondering why a one word comment might need moderation. I look forward to your dance.

Last night, (9-21-2014) around 9PM EST, I clicked into a Wall Street Journal article regarding the climate march and I checked out some of the march photos they presented.
At that time, the independent estimate for marchers was ‘tens of thousands’ while the march organizers were claiming 310,000 – 400,000 plus marchers worldwide.
11AM this morning and the article is changed. Gone is the independent estimate and now the organizers estimate is 400,000 plus marchers in New York City.
New York has access to experts who are quite capable of accurately assessing crowd sizes. They must, crowds require adequate preparations and precautions for safety, transportation, restrooms, food and police; otherwise disaster portends.
Where are the independent estimates with photographic evidence?
What objective person(s) in the world automatically accept estimates from organizers whose success depends upon those numbers? Objective! Remember to keep that word objective in perspective. Especially when we already know just how objective a number of those organizers are, (e.g. McKibbs bits).
While looking through the photos and reading the signage carried, I was a little surprised just why all those groups thought they were marching.

“Steve P September 22, 2014 at 7:24 am
Agreed. It is a fatal flaw to underestimate an adversary.
As I’ve written elsewhere here, and its cohorts have demonstrated their ability to organize and mobilize “over 1500″ disparate groups for their so-called “ecosocialist” activities…”

Steve P weighed in with a very short list of those groups attending the march. Quite a number of those groups carried signs that didn’t mention climate change; which I thought was interesting.
Supposedly 500 busses were used to drive protestors in from out of the city. Why? Those folks could’ve marched wherever they were from, saved carbon fuels, kept roads clear and ate their own food.
Based on other ‘ organized’ bus events I expect that protestors rode free and at least got free food and drink at the block party.
Described differently, the protestors brought in enjoyed a free trip to the Big Apple with food and drink even if every one of them were not paid to show up.
Bogus all around from specific marcher motives to marcher compensation(s) whether food, drink, free ride, monetary to the mathematically very anomalous marcher count.

‘Supposedly 500 busses were used to drive protestors in from out of the city.’
Only 500? If each of those buses hold 100 passengers each (I don’t think they do) that leaves us with a total of 5,000 out of towners. And, in my admittedly limited experience, most out of town protesters arrive by bus. Which is why the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and Washington, and the congested East Coast is set up for this. So, unless those other 395,000 protesters all harken from the direct New York area me thinks this, um protest, ain’t quite the biggee it’s claimed.
But, then again, those 500 buses could be special magic buses. Maybe they’re teletransportation buses. Expandable buses? Regenerating buses? Breed like rabbit buses? Who knows?


“Only 500? If each of those buses hold 100 passengers each (I don’t think they do) that leaves us with a total of 5,000 out of towners.”
Make that 50,000 (500 * 100). (But such buses probably hold only 60 people, so make it 30,000.)


Irrelevant. 311,000 or 3,100,000, it does nothing to prove or dis-prove AGW.


Going back to the march in Santa Fe….I was talking to a young marcher..teenager…I mentioned underwater volcanoes and that is what causing calfing on the small part of Antarctica not co2. He was surprised we have underwater volcanoes.He never heard of them…so much on our school science

Pamela Gray

Underwater volcanoes are certainly presented in standard geography text books. That your teenager didn’t read that chapter is not a reflection on teachers as much as it is a reflection on teenagers. By the way, under-the-ocean mountains are called seamounts. Many such seamounts are also volcanoes. My 5th grade writing club studied them.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Chennai

I heard some people learn geography by declaring war. If undersea volcanoes had oil…..

Jim G

With today’s emphasis upon “studies” that support everything from global warming to whether kids should have their tonsils removed, the largest void in high school science is regarding the basic skills needed to evaluate research validity. And I do believe some very basic skills could be taught at that level that would be very valuable and be no more difficult than pre-calc. I try to introduce such issues where time permits and where appropriate.

Underwater Volcanoes discriminate against South Sea Islanders.
Therefore, Underwater Volcanoes are RACIST and must never be discussed.