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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 22, 2014 1:51 am

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

Chuck L
Reply to  Perry
September 22, 2014 4:48 am

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

Tammie Lee de Cortez Haynes
Reply to  Perry
September 22, 2014 6:28 am

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.

Reply to  Tammie Lee de Cortez Haynes
September 22, 2014 10:29 am

I’ll go with Tammie’s numbers.

Nigel S
Reply to  Tammie Lee de Cortez Haynes
September 22, 2014 12:53 pm

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
Reply to  Tammie Lee de Cortez Haynes
September 23, 2014 7:48 am

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.

Reply to  Perry
September 22, 2014 10:17 am

Perry says:
…now they are olds.
Yes, they are olds:comment image

Reply to  dbstealey
September 22, 2014 1:52 pm

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
Reply to  dbstealey
September 22, 2014 2:12 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
September 22, 2014 7:11 pm

These marchers may get the lights turned off sooner than they think!

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Perry
September 23, 2014 4:37 am

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

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Perry
September 23, 2014 7:40 pm

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
Reply to  Perry
September 24, 2014 3:47 am

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
Reply to  Perry
September 24, 2014 9:09 am

LMAO. Thanks Peter. You actually made me laugh twice in two days.

oebele bruinsma
September 22, 2014 1:53 am

Back at Breitbart drone footage is available to view the crowd; seems not huge though.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
September 22, 2014 10:43 am

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.

September 22, 2014 1:57 am

Hilarious – from those poll numbers, pretty much everyone who ticked the “environment” box was at the march.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 22, 2014 1:57 am

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
September 22, 2014 1:58 am

There was not such a turnout in the UK….

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 2:32 am

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.

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 3:26 am

from radio reports Aussies also turned up in hundreds..except for melbourne..or so they say. havent seen pics.

George Lawson
Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 22, 2014 6:30 am

Don’t expect a rational reply from the irrationality!

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 3:30 am

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?

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 4:13 am

…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?

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 4:24 am

[Were] you there Peter? Where does the climate hoax rank for you?

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 5:20 am

Beats the heck out of your approach Pete. Creating poverty to fight a problem that never existed.

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 8:59 am

The pay for “protesters” in the UK was most likely not enough to get a good turnout.

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 9:05 am

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?

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 1:21 pm

British corn equals American wheat. American corn equals British maize.
Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 3:25 pm

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.

Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 3:37 pm

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.
Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
September 22, 2014 3:40 pm

Every gardener knows that water is more important for agricultural output than CO2

September 22, 2014 2:03 am

Assuming about 600000 attended worldwide that would make about 0.01% of the total world population. Not what you would call a real consensus.

Reply to  Goldie
September 22, 2014 2:00 pm

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
September 22, 2014 2:13 am

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

Reply to  Village Idiot
September 22, 2014 2:24 am

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.

Reply to  ddpalmer
September 22, 2014 6:56 am

Ah, but his screen name is apropos!

Reply to  Village Idiot
September 22, 2014 2:25 am

What’s on that page about trolls?

Reply to  Village Idiot
September 22, 2014 2:26 am

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.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 22, 2014 2:53 am

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.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 22, 2014 4:36 am

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.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 22, 2014 5:15 am

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
Reply to  richardscourtney
September 22, 2014 5:18 am

awesome point

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 22, 2014 9:37 am

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
Reply to  richardscourtney
September 22, 2014 1:30 pm

“vicgallus the figures below 310,000 only survive in comment threads like this one. ”
It says it all about the mentality of a true believer. There are calculations for you to check. What was wrong with them? There are more above. Find a flaw with them. These proper estimates are around the tens of thousands and not 200. I say proper not because it comes from authority but how its calculated is there for you to see and for you to make a judgement,

Village Idiot
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 22, 2014 3:36 am

Rule #1 of ‘Sceptisism’: Sow doubt about the data.
And you 🙂

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 22, 2014 5:23 am

VIllage Idiot’s guide to reality. Ignore any problems with the data if paid to do so.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 22, 2014 3:46 pm

Village Idiot,
What data?? All I see are opinions. Numbers have been ratcheted up throughout the past 24 hours, from a few tens of thousands, to a hundred thousand, to a worldwide total of 300,000 – 400,000, to a Manhattan-only total of 300,000 – 400,000. Believe what you want. But it’s not data.
Alarmist Rule #1: Refuse to believe the real data, no matter how often it is confirmed.
Example: there are plenty of village idiots who still argue that global warming is continuing. They even argue that global warming is accelerating.
They are nuts, of course. But at least they follow Rule #1.

Reply to  Village Idiot
September 22, 2014 4:00 am

Please post your take on the march and please do so with as much detail as possible.

Reply to  Village Idiot
September 22, 2014 5:21 am

Interesting how the trolls declare any truth that they wish to hide, a hatchet job.

Reply to  Village Idiot
September 22, 2014 5:35 am

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.

September 22, 2014 2:14 am

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.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 2:59 am

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.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 3:04 am

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
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 3:16 am

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”?

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 5:16 am

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
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 5:16 am

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.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 5:20 am

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.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 5:24 am

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?

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 5:25 am

The “awfulness of AGW will come from the things the idiots have done to try and fight it.
Massive poverty, loss of freedom, etc.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 7:02 am

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
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 9:21 am

do, not “due” with time.

michael hart
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 9:23 am

“..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.

Karl W. Braun
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 10:00 am
ferd berple
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 11:20 am

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
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 11:25 am

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

ferd berple
Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 11:30 am

Victoria BC. Sea levels unchanged for 100 years:

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 12:44 pm

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.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 1:43 pm

@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.

Reply to  policycritic
September 22, 2014 2:53 pm

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
Reply to  policycritic
September 23, 2014 4:05 pm

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
Reply to  policycritic
September 23, 2014 4:07 pm

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
September 22, 2014 2:15 am

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
September 22, 2014 2:26 am

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.

Reply to  Mr Bliss
September 22, 2014 2:35 am

With any luck, they might have spotted someone famous.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Mr Bliss
September 22, 2014 5:19 am

Correct. How many were protesters and how many were just out to watch the parade?

Reply to  Alberta Slim
September 22, 2014 9:35 am

How many thought it was the line to buy the latest iPhone?

Reply to  Mr Bliss
September 22, 2014 9:46 am

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
Reply to  Mr Bliss
September 22, 2014 10:48 am

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
Reply to  Mr Bliss
September 22, 2014 11:36 am

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.

September 22, 2014 2:27 am

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).

Reply to  CodeTech
September 22, 2014 3:00 pm

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.

Reply to  CodeTech
September 22, 2014 3:13 pm

Actually there is one useful ‘renewable’ and it is hydroelectricity. Its usefulness is why Greens oppose it.
Reply to  CodeTech
September 22, 2014 3:31 pm

Firewood is renewable

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  CodeTech
September 23, 2014 6:38 pm
I’ve heard it even grows on trees.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 22, 2014 2:28 am


September 22, 2014 2:28 am

Make yourself a strong cup of coffee and watch:

September 22, 2014 2:33 am

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
September 22, 2014 2:33 am

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
September 22, 2014 2:36 am

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.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 22, 2014 2:52 am

I condemn the collective stupidity that foams up when you mix Occupy Wall Street, left over Acorns, and OFA.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 22, 2014 5:30 am

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
Reply to  Maggie Gray (@imaggination)
September 22, 2014 7:47 am

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.

Reply to  Maggie Gray (@imaggination)
September 22, 2014 9:11 am

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.

Reply to  Maggie Gray (@imaggination)
September 22, 2014 9:19 am

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.

Reply to  Maggie Gray (@imaggination)
September 22, 2014 3:00 pm

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
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
September 23, 2014 4:15 pm

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
September 22, 2014 2:39 am

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.

Reply to  M Courtney
September 22, 2014 6:27 am

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
Reply to  Barry
September 22, 2014 6:29 am

REALITY. That’s why.

david smith
Reply to  Barry
September 22, 2014 7:08 am

“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.

Reply to  Barry
September 22, 2014 7:24 am

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.

Reply to  Barry
September 22, 2014 9:21 am

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.

Reply to  Barry
September 22, 2014 1:47 pm

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
Reply to  Barry
September 22, 2014 3:49 pm

Free markets are not allowed. Windmills, AKA bird choppers, are forced on us and raise both our electric bills and our taxes.

Reply to  M Courtney
September 22, 2014 7:15 am

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
Reply to  M Courtney
September 22, 2014 8:03 am

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.

September 22, 2014 2:40 am

Bob, every one of these topics is an Agenda21 action item.

September 22, 2014 2:49 am

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
Reply to  tagerbaek
September 22, 2014 7:56 am

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
Reply to  tagerbaek
September 22, 2014 8:35 am

and all that CO2 in the bubbles too…ahh the destruction of the climate (/sarc for those who need it)

Reply to  tagerbaek
September 24, 2014 3:09 am

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.

September 22, 2014 2:49 am

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
September 22, 2014 2:51 am

I suspect the impact of yesterday will be greater than any of us would like.

Reply to  Mario Martini
September 22, 2014 5:41 am

No, climate is now another astroturf faux movement. It is not going anywhere. The hustlers are simnply selling princes some new clothing.

Reply to  hunter
September 24, 2014 3:26 am

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.

Reply to  Mario Martini
September 22, 2014 2:17 pm

I agree it will have an impact, unlike most marches. See my 3 comments below starting at

September 22, 2014 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.

September 22, 2014 3:19 am

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!

Reply to  Kate Forney
September 22, 2014 7:26 am

the ultimate irony. driving to a march to show concern about climate change.

September 22, 2014 3:30 am

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.

Reply to  Richard
September 22, 2014 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. 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.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 23, 2014 9:26 am

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.

September 22, 2014 3:39 am

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.

September 22, 2014 3:45 am

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.

Reply to  barberic
September 22, 2014 7:55 am

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!

Reply to  barberic
September 22, 2014 8:09 am

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

September 22, 2014 3:48 am

“…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
September 22, 2014 3:52 am

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
Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 4:35 am

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 22, 2014 5:01 am


Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 5:28 am

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.

Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 5:31 am

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
Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2014 6:00 am

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.

Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 7:50 am

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
Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 8:18 am

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

Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 8:21 am

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.

Reply to  DirkH
September 22, 2014 12:50 pm

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.

Reply to  DirkH
September 22, 2014 2:27 pm

“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.

Reply to  DirkH
September 22, 2014 2:55 pm

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.

Reply to  DirkH
September 22, 2014 3:08 pm

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…

Reply to  DirkH
September 22, 2014 3:21 pm

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
Reply to  DirkH
September 23, 2014 4:25 pm

“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.

Reply to  Jonny Old Boy
September 22, 2014 3:02 pm

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

Steve Case
September 22, 2014 4:00 am

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.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 22, 2014 4:22 am

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.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 22, 2014 3:47 pm

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
September 22, 2014 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.

Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 5:19 am

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

Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 5:20 am

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.

Reply to  commieBob
September 22, 2014 8:29 am

Very well and succinctly put.

Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 5:34 am

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
Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 5:41 am

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.-?

Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 7:52 am

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?

Reply to  DirkH
September 22, 2014 3:04 pm

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

bit chilly
Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 8:15 am

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
Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 8:43 am

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

ferd berple
Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 11:41 am

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

Reply to  ferd berple
September 22, 2014 12:26 pm

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?

Reply to  ferd berple
September 22, 2014 2:30 pm

lernwareenglish, you’re not making sense.

Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 12:09 pm

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

Reply to  Richatd Punko
September 22, 2014 5:54 pm

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

September 22, 2014 4:19 am

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”…

Reply to  pat
September 22, 2014 6:21 pm

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

Reply to  pat
September 22, 2014 6:37 pm

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.
Reply to  ATheoK
September 22, 2014 8:15 pm


Reply to  pat
September 22, 2014 8:42 pm

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

September 22, 2014 4:20 am

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.

Reply to  RockyRoad
September 22, 2014 4:58 am
Charles Nelson
September 22, 2014 4:24 am

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.

September 22, 2014 4:28 am

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
September 22, 2014 4:34 am

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

September 22, 2014 4:42 am

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

September 22, 2014 4:43 am

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

Richard M
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
September 22, 2014 6:34 am

You used a bad word … fra..ulent.

September 22, 2014 4:45 am

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

Karl W. Braun
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 22, 2014 10:28 am

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

Reply to  Bill Illis
September 22, 2014 1:59 pm

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

Claude Harvey
September 22, 2014 4:54 am

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
Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 22, 2014 6:08 am

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
Reply to  lawrence Cornell
September 22, 2014 8:16 am

all hail the sheeple.

Steve P
Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 22, 2014 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.
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.

Reply to  Steve P
September 22, 2014 9:51 am

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.

Reply to  Steve P
September 22, 2014 3:06 pm

There is so much influence in demonizing the rich.

Reply to  Steve P
September 22, 2014 7:50 pm

The CWA is a big backer of wind mills.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 22, 2014 10:26 am

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.

Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 22, 2014 12:13 pm

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.

September 22, 2014 4:57 am

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.

September 22, 2014 4:59 am

Insanity is contagious.

Reply to  Tim
September 22, 2014 7:28 am

Insanity looked like it was contiguous in NY . . .

September 22, 2014 5:02 am

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

Steve P
Reply to  Paul Bell
September 22, 2014 8:22 am

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.

September 22, 2014 5:03 am

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.

September 22, 2014 5:05 am

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.

Reply to  AndyZ
September 22, 2014 2:30 pm

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

September 22, 2014 5:13 am

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.

Reply to  Jer0me
September 22, 2014 5:38 am

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.

Reply to  Jer0me
September 22, 2014 3:08 pm

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

September 22, 2014 5:15 am

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

September 22, 2014 5:27 am

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.

September 22, 2014 5:35 am

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?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 22, 2014 7:14 am

Your friend in action:
This is powerful, take care

Reply to  rd50
September 22, 2014 8:08 pm

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:

Tom J
September 22, 2014 5:36 am

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.

Tom J
Reply to  Tom J
September 22, 2014 6:54 am

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.

Reply to  Tom J
September 22, 2014 7:27 am

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

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Tom J
September 22, 2014 8:49 am

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

Reply to  Tom J
September 22, 2014 10:13 am

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.

Tom J
Reply to  ATheoK
September 22, 2014 1:38 pm

‘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?

Reply to  ATheoK
September 22, 2014 3:34 pm

“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.)

Reply to  Tom J
September 22, 2014 6:02 pm

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

September 22, 2014 5:39 am

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

Reply to  David
September 22, 2014 5:45 am

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
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 22, 2014 6:31 am

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

Jim G
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 22, 2014 8:11 am

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.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 22, 2014 9:57 am

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

September 22, 2014 5:41 am

The proposed catastrophe of an insignificant rise in average temperature from 34 to 34.5 C inside of 2 or 3 generations is the issue here. The horror of 1 entire degree will be……..lost on humans. They can’t detect that difference and it is still inside natural variation and well inside the error bars of climate models.
The march was nothing more than a march of intellectually stunted, mob-ruled idiots.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 22, 2014 6:06 am

Pamela, and since the temp won’t change in the tropics, it means that it will warm up in the right places.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 22, 2014 7:55 am

Given their track record, I’m moving south.

September 22, 2014 5:44 am

Per the population clock: the US has 318,892,103 population at the moment.
So one could restate the march numbers as “318 Million 572 Thousand, 103” people snub climate march.
Or as: “Only 0.1% of US population shows up for march”…
Numbers can be such fun…

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  E.M.Smith
September 22, 2014 11:09 am

Well, 120,000 would be less than 400 ppm.

Reply to  Rainer Bensch
September 22, 2014 11:48 am

It appears that the folks who guesstimated the turnout were the same ones who made this sign:

September 22, 2014 5:45 am

The climate kooks are making one last push towards relevance. Every one of their treaties, movies, laws, and predictions have failed. Yet all they do is ramp up the fear.
That sort of behavior meets the definition of crazy.
They are yesterday’s fear mongers whining about their inevitable passage into irrelevance.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  hunter
September 22, 2014 6:21 am

This is precisely why we don’t have to worry about a totalitarian world gov. It starts off nice and fuzzy, full of Kumbaya moments, but eventually they get impatient and pushy, and soon its all hanging out for even the most gullible to see. The apparatchiks have faded away before this to fight another day and left the crumbling edifice to the useful idiots who are the last to be disillusioned. Interestingly, we have to be thankful to China, Russia and India who have held the fort for the rest of us to catch up. The soshulist model has been falsified repeatedly (hence Russia and China’s role as saviors) but these Luddites haven’t the imagination to try something different.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 22, 2014 9:31 am

Gary, the problem is that while the population does wake up and roll back the gains of the one world govt types, they only give back about 90% of what they have gained.
Each new assault starts from higher ground than the previous assault.

September 22, 2014 5:45 am

On another topic, looks like the artic minimum ice extent may have been passed. Another year of “ice free” artic fail.

Frank K.
Reply to  DHolliday
September 22, 2014 6:24 am

No. Climate March! World burning up! Polar ice caps REALLY melting!! I can’t hear you [fingers in ears]! /sarc

September 22, 2014 5:57 am

You are all out of your depth, the real issue goes back to the Galileo affair when the central argument was not really whether the Earth was the center of the solar system or Universe but rather whether the system which predicts astronomical events such as when the Equinox occurs,when solar and lunar eclipses happen and things like that would mesh with the observations and conclusions used to determine the Earth turns and moves through space.
The later empiricists exploited the term ‘predictive’ as it applies to astronomy within a clockwork solar system framework and then extended it to all motions large and small until we arrive in this train wreck of an era where everything is dumped into predictions/speculations and nothing reserved for interpretation and stable narratives which link astronomy to terrestrial sciences.
Turns out that one side in this ‘climate change’ mess is every bit as problematic as the other for the wider view looks at the emergence of predictive modeling and the disappearance of interpretative science where none of this nonsense would have happened.

Reply to  Gkell1
September 23, 2014 7:38 pm

Ya~ tell those shallow(?) punctuation users what’s what!
So, are you saying that both sides of the CAGW ‘mess’ are both wrong, because predictive modeling has usurped interpretative science in some way? It may be you whom are out of your depth, because interpretive science is even easier to politically spin than predictive modeling applied to science. The real problem, is that bad interpretations lead to failed predictions.

September 22, 2014 6:09 am

If you do a bit of drilling down on, you will find that around 20% of respondents claim Mexico as their home country. I have nothing against Mexico, but these results are far from definitive. It’s just another example of the thoughtless approach the UN takes in all of its efforts. I will say that it is interesting that they would go public with this, since it is bad news for the warmist agenda. When will they start “adjusting” these results?

Chris B
Reply to  Ken
September 22, 2014 6:23 am

I was going to post the same thing. Mexico is incredibly over-represented in this survey. I’m curious how that happened. Also, 13.3% from Sri Lanka, 4.3% from Yemen, 3.5% from Nigeria, yet only 1.1% from USA. Heck, Ghana (1.2%) had a better showing than we did.

September 22, 2014 6:17 am
September 22, 2014 6:23 am

Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Rebane/s Ruminations has an excellent local discussion on the People’s Climate Change March. This march has all the signs of desperation. The participants are screaming slogans, rather than citing facts.

September 22, 2014 6:26 am

Meanwhile here in the UK there was a march through London headed by Emma Thompson and Vivienne Westwood – so you know automatically that they have no idea what they are marching for. Loads of banners saying ‘100% clean energy’ – whatever that means…

September 22, 2014 6:37 am

Between 310,000 to 400,000? AM New York today is saying “tens of thousands”.
I was interested in going to have a look myself and getting an idea of the size, but with the multiple PATH failures I wasn’t interested in getting stranded…

September 22, 2014 6:47 am

I’m shocked to see that political freedom ranks so low on the scale. I would have that at the top of what I want government to insure.

September 22, 2014 6:52 am

C’mon, let’s be honest here:
it is the “peoples” march, and the “people” are being constantly told in the media that “climate change is here and it is not good”, the science is settled, the debate is over, we must act now”,. Heck, even the President of the United States has said so, along with an ex-Vice President and, most importantly, Bill Nye the science guy, so it must be true.
These “people” are clueless of the truth: that only a portion of what is portrayed as “the science” is settled, that there is serious debate (even among supporters of the CAGW concept) going on, a globally warming atmosphere has not been happening in 15 – 18 years, nothing unprecedented has happened with the climate in recent history, etc.
Forgive them for they know not what they do, although they do look like they are having a good time doing it.

more soylent green!
September 22, 2014 6:53 am

These people are all smarter than the rest of us — just ask them. So it’s no surprise they have other priorities.
#1 Priority is tell the rest of us how to live.

September 22, 2014 6:55 am

Data, Data, as with everything else in Climate Activisim, data is the first item to get mangled. We’ll never know how many people attended the March, it is too politically charged a data point for any level of integrity.
Not that it matters, after OWS which was a far more lengthy and wide ranging protest, Wall Street wealth has been on a huge upswing and the ranks in poverty have stayed the same if not increased.

more soylent green!
September 22, 2014 7:00 am

Climate change skeptics call out marchers’ ‘hypocrisies’

Jim G
September 22, 2014 7:06 am

I went to the “Vote” site and was struck by the fact that there was little there that I would, as a US citizen, consider the business of government to accomplish. I certainly could not find 6 such issues in which the government should play any major roll. And none for the UN.

September 22, 2014 7:13 am

Had a Twitter chat with several of the attendees. They have a severe lack of civility. Name calling and such seems to be the mode of operation with that group.
There was a blackboard with the level of CO2 on it put not the temperature. I pointed that without the temperature the board was bogus. Also was a shot of the crowd with fossil spelled wrong and a sign held upside down which I commented on.

September 22, 2014 7:16 am

If there was an honest and responsive government then climate alarmism would be out of business. So no it is not high on lefty’s list. Haven’t you heard? Climate change is like the most urgent thing in like the history of like ever. Did you know like more animals are extincted in one hour than like the sun is as far from the earth?

Reply to  LogosWrench
September 22, 2014 8:26 am

Bwahaha….edumacation is like sooo important!….anyone else got the munchies?

Karl W. Braun
Reply to  LogosWrench
September 22, 2014 10:59 am

Past participle of the verb ‘to extinct’ is ‘extunct’.

Coach Springer
September 22, 2014 7:26 am

Mustering all the usual suspects from throughout the world for one protest in New York. Some of them were climate alarmists. Some of them were anti-capitalist. Some were Liberal Hipster Doofuses. All of them full of hype. And still less than that Glenn Beck rally in Washington a few years back.

September 22, 2014 7:35 am

The scientists gathering in new York are saying that emissions will continue to increase, adding that the world in about 30 years will warm by about 1.1 C from now. In 2009, world leaders called that level dangerous and pledged not to reach it.
Just go back a few years.
Pentagon-climate-scenario/ June 2014: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda
Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
None of that has happened…
The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight that these are worst case projections in the opening paragraph. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case . No nation can afford to spend money to mitigate worst case scenarios, nor should they. The problem is that some politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true. They then fabricate entirely new falsehoods like carbon dioxide is a pollutant on top of these worst case scenarios and you now have a firm government action thrust on the general public that is all pure fabrication of a worst case scenario that will never come about. Yet it comes from the highest administrative offices in the land
Now that it has been clearly shown during the recent 17 year pause in the rise of global temperature , that CO2 levels do not significantly raise global temperatures, what is happening with respect to global warming ? The global ocean surface temperatures have stopped rising and are in fact declining especially in the Northern Hemisphere and in particular, for the North Atlantic Ocean. The Winters are cooling globally and especially in the Northern Hemisphere. These factors have all combined to cause a major 17 year pause in global warming .This pattern is likely to continue for the next 2-3 decades as the cooler ocean cycles typically last 30-35 years and they have just started. North America is having one its coldest winters since about 30 years ago ( 34th coldest in UNITED STATES since 1895). Global climate seems to be returning to the cooler temperatures like we had 1880-1910 and 1945-1979. There has been no nation wide global warming in United States for 16 years or since 1998.

Reply to  herkimer
September 22, 2014 7:59 pm

Wish someone could take away these guys computers and let them start doing some real science!

David A
September 22, 2014 7:37 am

I took the poll. At the end of the listed concerns you get to add one of your own. I wrote, “Freedom from overreaching statist bureaucracy”
I have a feeling the UN will not like that.

September 22, 2014 7:38 am

According to the following article by The Telegraph:
the figure 310,000 is for the total participation in all the simultaneous marches worldwide. For New York they mention “tens of thousands” and “as many as” 100,000.
It’s strange that nobody has made this correction here yet…

September 22, 2014 7:50 am

There were 15 NFL games this weekend. Average attendance for the first two weekends of this season was 73,000. So about 1.1 million Americans attended football games while the march was held. Many million more watched their favourite teams on TV. Add another 73,000 tonight (Jets/Bears). Just saying! Regards from Canada- go Bears.

Reply to  R2Dtoo
September 22, 2014 1:35 pm

14 – One Thursday and one Monday.

September 22, 2014 7:54 am

“Everyone is happy. The legal eagles are glad the courts aren’t log jammed with misdemeanours, the cops don’t have to do tons of paperwork and the kids have had their very own martyrdom experience saving the planet, which thank goodness won’t appear permanently on their unblemished record. Everyone has a jolly time, even the cops, who occasionally like to dress up like Robocop and always appreciate a bit of overtime.”
Don’t be too hard on the. It’s a good day out for everyone.

September 22, 2014 7:55 am

I’m with George:

September 22, 2014 8:13 am

If one in ten had a grasp of the issues surrounding climate science, I’d be surprised.

September 22, 2014 8:18 am

There is a Flood Wall Street demonstration being organized today.
Think “Occupy Wall Street 2014 + Climate Change Push for Paris 2015”

September 22, 2014 8:22 am
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 22, 2014 8:34 am

Some twitter accounts that caught my attention:
@ GlobalRevLive “Global Revolution TV”
Center for Bio Div ‏@ CenterForBioDiv · 14m
Civil disobedience training happening now as these people get ready to
Mike Hudema ‏@ MikeHudema · 15m
Now that’s a banner! RT “@ Peoples_Climate: Capitalism = climate chaos!
gangolan ‏@ gangolan · 16m
Direct Action training happening at # FloodWallSt. # PeoplesClimate pic
Hrag ‏@ hragv · 5m
Carbon Bubble is getting out of control # FloodWallStreet # newyorkcity pic (
(big 16 foot inflated balloon pushball. )
The march is starting now.
They didn’t drive in 500 busses of activists for any Sunday picnic.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 22, 2014 8:46 am

Bill McKibben ‏@ billmckibben · 1h
Nice to see big crowd on hand for # FloodWallStreet it’s a beautiful morning on the Battery
Jemma Rose Brown ‏@ jemmarosebrown · 1m
wear blue and inundate the banks at noon.
Sarah Levine ‏@ salixroots · 2m
Decolonize the water, decolonize the land. We’re changing up the system, we’re changing up the plan.
[Retweeted many times]
Tar Sands News ‏@EI_TarSands · 1m
Only question how brutal will NYC police @ NYPDnews be against peaceful climate protestors # FloodWallStreet Watch live
Old Forest Wisdom ‏@oldforests · 1m
Only question how brutal will NYC police @NYPDnews be against peaceful climate protestors # FloodWallStreet Watch live
“Feel the Force”
“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

September 22, 2014 8:29 am

The AGW movement has always been more about the politics than the science so lets face it, the march was a success for the organizers who were determined to rally the troops. In politics you always want to differentiate yourself from those opposing you. Obama and his team are ‘for the planet’ and they hope that the voting public is left with the impression that the other side must therefore be ‘against the planet’.

Russ R.
September 22, 2014 8:29 am

A “tiny temper tantrum” from the drama queens of “climate catastrophe”. It was just a casting call for a new reality show: “Crisis De-jour”.

September 22, 2014 8:49 am

Ambulance chasers without an ambulance. Ha ha. No Frankenstein in the castle. Ha ha. Gore did show for a few minutes; that was as Franken close to a stein as he will get. Ha ha. 😀

September 22, 2014 8:54 am

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 […]

And it’s been at the very bottom almost from the getgo! I first stumbled across this survey in June last year when approx. 622,000 votes had been cast.
So when I revisited in early May of this year, I was not all surprised to find it still> at the bottom (431,377) of a 2,013,830 heap.
What I do find, well, somewhat surprising, though, is that between May 5 and Sept. 22 they seem to have more than doubled the heap to (your capture of) 5,015,324 … and “Action taken on Climate Change” seems to have taken a giant leap to (your capture) 1,058,568.
Percentage increases in such a short period of time are somewhat curious, to say the least. But if they’re seeking a higher rating for “Action taken on Climate Change”, it doesn’t seem to be helping … well, not so far!

September 22, 2014 8:55 am

If one looks at the organizations that were on the list backing this ‘march’ you mostly find three basic groups:
1) Communists and hard-left socialists
2) Somewhat fringe-ish churches
3) Unions (potentially indistinguishable from the hard-left socialists above)
This is perhaps the clearest proof yet of the nature of ‘climate change’ as a substitute faith.

Reply to  JEM
September 22, 2014 11:11 am


September 22, 2014 9:01 am

It is really hard to build up support for suicide it tends to be self-limiting.

September 22, 2014 9:07 am

JEM, that doesn’t mean they cannot organize and intimidate.
Yesterday was just the dress rehearsal.
I wonder if today might undo what they did Sunday.
Occupy Wall Street ‏@OccupyWallStNYC · 5m
# BreakingNews capitalism = climate chaos # FloodWallStreet # climatejustice
Eli Feghali ‏@ efeghali · 10m
Some more pictures from the # FloodWallStreet CD training. Flow like water!
Retweeted by Occupy Wall Street
Anonymous ‏@ Crypt0nymous · 7m
Pro-Tips: Record everything. Stay together. Protect each other. The cops can’t arrest everyone. They will use force. # FloodWallStreet
Dennis Trainor, Jr. ‏@ dennistrainorjr · 1m
Massive sit in now # floodwallstreet
Harris from the Post ‏@ rousseau_ist · 4m
# FloodWallStreet did a quick U-Turn back to the Bull
Devyn Powell ‏@ DevynFromOregon · 2m
An important thing happening now. RT @ eligerzon # FloodWallStreet
[chant] The people are rising! No more compromising! (Amen)
Christopher Robbins ‏@ ChristRobbins · 4m
About 100 sit on Broadway, heard another contingent is headed towards Wall Street # FloodWallStreet

September 22, 2014 9:17 am

Scenes from yesterday’s all-purpose-protest-cum-socialist-danceathon in New York City:

September 22, 2014 9:21 am

There’s an election coming up in November, and the Democrats are rightfully worried about the President’s negative ratings. So this could be viewed as an attempt to create a false, alarming sense of urgency about the climate, to distract voters from the legitimate urgent global security issues (ISIS, Putin, Iraq, Libya, etc).
Remember “Occupy Wall Street” and the “1%”? That was a similar distraction to create class envy and hatred, just before the 2012 elections.
We’ll see another, bigger wave of this kind of crowd-activism just before the 2016 election.
This stuff is far more predictable than any NOAA climate model, and much more effective in creating its desired goals.

Mike Maguire
September 22, 2014 9:24 am

I don’t care if 300 million people were there…or 3 billion think CO2=pollution.
Science isn’t settled based on how many people come to a rally or respond to a poll based on what they think they know.
Sunshine +H2O + CO2 + some minerals in the soil = O2 + Food(sugars)
Increase the CO2 and you get more O2 and more food. World food production has been soaring with the help of increasing CO2, despite what the people at this rally(and however many others think).
“Released September 11, 2014, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
Corn Production Up 3 Percent from August Forecast
Soybean Production Up 3 Percent
Cotton Production Down 6 Percent
Corn production is forecast at 14.4 billion bushels, up 3 percent from both
the August forecast and from 2013. Based on conditions as of September 1,
yields are expected to average 171.7 bushels per acre, up 4.3 bushels from
the August forecast and 12.9 bushels above the 2013 average. If realized,
this will be the highest yield and production on record for the United
States. Area harvested for grain is forecast at 83.8 million acres, unchanged
from the August forecast but down 4 percent from 2013.
Soybean production is forecast at a record 3.91 billion bushels, up 3 percent
from August and up 19 percent from last year. Based on September 1
conditions, yields are expected to average a record high 46.6 bushels per
acre, up 1.2 bushels from last month and up 3.3 bushels from last year.”
Other than a a slight increase in heavy downpours/flooding and rain the last 3 decades(part of which was likely caused by the slight/modest greenhouse gas warming from an increase in CO2, the others effects, have either been undetermined(not a factor) or beneficial.
So we have choices:
1. Spend trillions to cut CO2 emissions with it resulting in less heavy rain events, while reducing increases in world food production or
2. Continue to let CO2 increase and add to the 20% increase that it has already contributed to plant growth, vegetative health and crop yields.
Tough choice……………….that is, if the above choices have been instead been framed like this:
1. Spend XXX amount to cut carbon pollution, with it slowing/stopping the catastrophic warming, extreme weather and widespread and harmful, human caused climate change or
2. Continue to let CO2 increase and allow carbon pollution to accelerate the catastrophic warming, extreme weather and widespread and harmful, human caused climate change.
My 32 years as an operational meteorologist analyzing global weather patterns and using them to predict crop conditions/production and energy use, make this a no brainer.
On the other hand, it seems clear to me, that almost everybody at this rally, have already made their no brainer choices……………and they are the opposite of what what makes sense to me.
What should I do?
Should I go with 310,000 people that are convinced enough to travel to NY to support their position, or should I go with my 32 years of observations, that includes looking at weather data/climate that dates back to when humans began to record it accurately?
I don’t care if 3,000,000,000 people become brainwashed/hypnotized and tell me that 2+2=5. The correct solution is 4.
CO2 is a beneficial gas. The correct policy is to let it continue to increase and continue to benefit almost all creatures on this planet.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 22, 2014 11:19 am

There is no doubt about CO2 being a beneficial gas. We could even call it a “gaseous fertilizer”!
However, students in school will not see your links in class. They will see the one shown below. Hopefully they will grow up, but for now it is hard to blame them from joining demonstrations.

William Astley
September 22, 2014 9:24 am

We need a ‘debate’ with the warmists and/or their political party leaders to stop their manifold of madness and its impact on our economies. The number of people who will march and protest, stand on their head, or hold their breath will not change the facts and the ‘problem’ situation.
There are more than 10 fundamental observation and analysis results that support the assertion that there is no extreme AGA problem to solve. For example: 1) there is no observed tropical tropospheric hot spot, 2) the tropical region of the planet has not warmed as predicted (two thirds of the CO2 warming should have occurred in the tropics which makes sense as the amount of warming due to CO2 is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation emitted to space prior to the CO2 increase, the tropical region warming, if it had occurred, would have been caused by increased long wave downward emissions from the higher regions of the tropical troposphere (see