The color of the climate social movement – Zombie says 'red'

“Zombie” of “zombietime” fame writes to tell me that while the climate rallies in New York and London had a “whiff” of Marxism, the rallies in Oakland were not green, but a deep red.

Zombie writes:

My latest report might be of interest to you and/or your readers.

This is all new content, not based on or derived from anyone else’s report. (Several earlier posts about the NYC “climate march” mentioned that the whole affair seemed to have a faint whiff of Marxism — but my report is about the West Coast edition of the same event, which was apparently much more extreme and 100% pure unabashed communist agitation.)

With copious photos and rock-solid evidence, needless to say.

This just confirms James Delingpole’s “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside) thesis. Except now, they’re red on the outside too.

— z

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda

Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.

Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?


At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.

The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.

Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.

Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)


Full story:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

They have been transparent from the start….useful idiots with no sense of history unable to see the full failure of socialism in the EU and else where.

John Silver

Soon all of you can maybe learn what o “trot” is then perhaps even find out what a “french turn” is.
Or maybe not.

Useful idiots?
Steven Goddard posted a video of them at their last march in NYC.

With respect to Anthony, this is hardly new news. The green/AGW movement is merely the latest incarnation of Karl Marx’s predicted ‘collapse of capitalism due to its internal contradictions’ (probably a paraphrase) .
Marxism the ultimate failed zombie theory.

Kurt in Switzerland

h/t Delingpole.

Kurt in Switzerland

They just came out of their green closet doors for the parade. True colours shown now.

Ian W

As they ripen the true color shows through

The best thing that could happen to the idiots is for them to get their way. Unfortunately they would drag the rest of us into their cesspool of shortages, poverty and deprivation as well.


The Greenpeace activities to stop fracking in the UK is paid for by Putin’s Russia.
Green is the new red.


Please provide evidence; otherwise you just sound like the EU NATO news media who currently blame Putin for everything and its dog.


Absolutely agree.


Please provide evidence yourself.

Putin isn´t communist. He´s nationalist, populist and neo fascist. Gazprom may be financing some Greenpeace activities to increase European reliance on Russian gas. However, this is a response to EU encroachment on Russia´s strategic sphere of influence in Ukraine.
In this case it´s useful to step back, understand history, and try to see things from the other guy´s point of view. The Russians are firmly concinved they are in a purely defensive posture. Whether Americans and Europeans understand this point is questionable. Wars can be started by an aggressor whose behavior isn´t seen as aggressive by its own population, but is definitely seen as an existential threat by the other side. Intelligence analysts warned the US and European governments that too close an approach to Ukraine would yield negative results.
The US government, being led by a somewhat inept president and a truly incomprehensibly stupid Secretary of State decided to stick its finger in the bear´s eye. Now we´ll have to see how much mutual damage this move causes.


Fernando Leanme
September 24, 2014 at 4:51 am
“Putin isn´t communist. He´s nationalist, populist and neo fascist.”
In what regard is Putin a fascist? We know that Porochenko/Yazenjuk came to power via a putsch perpetrated by Ukraine fascist groups, supported by USA/NATO. In what regard is Putin then a fascist? Is NATO vs. Russia a fascist on fascist conflict? Please explain.

One effect is that Russia and China are creating bourses to conduct trade in Yuan. China already gets oil from Iran in Yuan—big surprise—so just like the US, it can now buy all the Iranian oil in its own currency. And just like the US, a government buying imports in its own currency costs the government the price of printing the $100 bill, about 0$.07, or nothing if it’s electronic. In other words, zip. China has caught on to how our currency works from the macro point-of-view of the federal government—which 99% of this country does not, aand certainly not G Edward Griffin—and how we were able to create the great middle class as a result pre-1970. It intends to use the same model.
Australia, Russia, Brazil, Chile, and some African countries are now trading in Yuan with China. This could be the start of the breakdown of the $US as the reserve currency, say by 2030, if this idiot President and his inept advisors and Treasury Sec don’t understand the consequences of what they’re doing imposing sanctions. They are violating the rules that Congress set up in the Federal Reserve Act that promises to treat foreign deposits and foreign purchases of our treasury securities as if they were diplomatic accounts. Foreign purchases of our treasury securities are essentially US ‘government CDs’ that foreign banks and governments must purchase if they want long-term savings in US Dollars. They buy them with cash made from Americans sales. By law, US dollars can’t leave the US banking system, so foreigners have the choice of wiring the money home in their own currency, or leaving it in $US at the Fed. In return for being the world’s banker and reserve currency, the US agreed decades ago that it would not violate diplomatic rules, which is has.
The US has violated the most sacred trust between nations, tantamount to trashing foreign embassies on US soil.
And the world is moving to stop it. The people running DC right now are either the stupidest f**ks that ever occupied office, or they are been played by a global interest that has a discrete interest in seeing the end of dollar hegemony. Either way, they are in way over their depth. And because Americans don’t understand how the federal monetary system works, they can’t see it.

(contd.) A ‘global interest’ might have a desire to introduce a global currency, say, which would explain the attempt to pass the multi-national Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in secret with no national debate and severe fines if details of the TPP are revealed to respective citizens.


Dirk H…… Putin is a classic authoritarian national socialist fascist. Just observe his politics and policies…..
Not to mention his cynical manipulation of the Russian political system with his President/Prime Minister/President until 2024 and probably for life, trick….. Then there’s the cadre of weak, but ruthless people he surrounds himself with like Dmitry Medvedev who is Prime Minister/President/Prime Minister of Putin’s Russia for as long as he is in Putin’s favour.
Putin has been riding a nationalist groundswell for quite a while now…. Here is some of the company he keeps…. The Night Wolves bikie gang and ultra nationalists.
Putin’s Russia also controls the media with much of it State own or taxpayer funded…. Then of course there is the murder and unexplained deaths of many critical journalists in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya being a most notable one. Being critical of Putin seems to attract fatal muggings and random road accidents by the score…… Night Wolves anyone?
… The list is extensive. Putin’s Russia is not a liberal society nor a functional democracy.

Eric Gisin

DirkH: Do you even know what fascist means? Authoritarian nationalist.
“We know that Porochenko/Yazenjuk came to power via a putsch perpetrated by Ukraine fascist groups, supported by USA/NATO.” Do you get all your conspiracy theories from Russian Today? Ukrainian fascists had little influence, they are either in jail or dead now.

Jeff L

This is good news to see so plainly so that those not intimately involved with the climate debate can actually see what’s going on. No one with main stream political views, left or right, which is the majority of people, will go for communism as a solution to the non-problem of CAGW. Having them coming out with true colors is the best thing that could happen to the skeptical side of the debate. The other side is basically imploding now.


“At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.”
This has been clear for a while, at least since Schellnhuber’s plan for a Grand transformation (BRD WBGU 2012 or so), which was communitarian in tone and vocabulary; communitarianism being the academic regurgitation of communism/central planning/technocracy.


It will also fail; it is always the losers who want capitalism to perish; not the winners. The losers currently being the “West”; the winners being the BRICS. Which will become clearer as we move along; just as a reminder, USA has heaped up another 1 tn USD of public debt over the last 12 months, (but admits only 600 bn; the other 400 bn being “off balance sheet” – so the USA is at this point incapable of ANY recovery, just like the PIIGS.)


Is Socialism the product that capitalism sells its losers? Thinking of Che Guevara T shirts here.

Richard Ilfeld

Nonsense. Recovery is economically straightforward. Politically — not so much. To recover , stomp on the rudder to stop the spin, then stick forward to break the stall. Stop and reverse over-regulation; bring spending more or less in line with revenues, and free energy production to achieve not only self-sufficiency, but export. Lots of immigration, with a significant fraction admitted due to capital & ambition (see Canada & Australia).
Build Nuclear power to maintain exports of coal/oil/gas as recovery costs increase. Grow more food than we need & sell that too.
Note — productivity is increasing due to technology. Its masked by political costs. Save 4% in production, add 3% in filling out stupid forms equals 1% growth.
Course everything is more difficult in an environment of government of the dependents, by the elites, for the liberal myths.


Richard Ilfeld
September 24, 2014 at 7:46 am
“Nonsense. Recovery is economically straightforward. Politically — not so much.”
You are right. If you get rid of overregulation it is easily possible.

Richard Ilfeld September 24, 2014 at 7:46 am
Nonsense. Recovery is economically straightforward. Politically — not so much. To recover , stomp on the rudder to stop the spin, then stick forward to break the stall. Stop and reverse over-regulation; bring spending more or less in line with revenues

If spending = revenue in a downturn (current state of US), then you recreate or maintain the recession or depression. You stall the engine again.
This happened in 1937-38 when the Republicans forced FDR to balance the budget. Within 11 months unemployment, which had gone down to 14% in two years from a high of 25% as a result of the WPA and CCC programs, shot back up to 19.4%. I know this is counter-intutive, but government does not act like households. Households and businesses can’t issue currency. The federal government can. The federal government is the only entity that can act “counter-cyclically” in a bad economy.
The only one who can increase jobs right now (24 million people need jobs now) is the federal government, which is does by spending on infrastructure, education, health care, telecommunications, and which is interest-free to the people when the federal government does it, but not when banks do it, as much as banks would like to take over the federal domain. (Look what’s happened to students’ lives as a result of banks taking over student loans.)

Just to be clear: spending = revenue is like acceleration = braking. Stall.

I like to debate with everybody. In my debates with what I call the “Al Gore” faction I find a range of political beliefs. The main group of extremists does tend to be communist. I suspect many of them lack the sophistication to understand that´s where they are headed.
Some are more into strict government controls, and haven´t given any thought to the economic system. What they do emphasize is the control issue, and this includes the use of repression to silence dissent (“we are in a war on denialist terror” approach).
I´d label these the envirofascist movement, because they are quite willing to have whatever economic system works provided it follows central planning, has a focused objective (shut down all fossil fuel burning), and a supreme leadership with “science” providing the justification.
But let´s face it, this century is seeing the emergence of very repressive, centrally controlled, autocratically led regimes which have no problem whatsoever using torture and violating human rights. The envirofascist and envirocommunist factions are just another couple of rats in a very large rat population.


“But let´s face it, this century is seeing the emergence of very repressive, centrally controlled, autocratically led regimes which have no problem whatsoever using torture and violating human rights.”
There are some interesting developments.
Putin has requested Germany to advise an overhaul of Russia’s legal system a while ago to strengthen the Rule Of Law. I guess there are some activities in this regard going on behind the curtain.
Xi Jinping routs out the cronies of the previous government.
Christianity is allowed to grow in China largely undeterred.
Both Russia and China are making steps in the right direction IMHO; this will have to be watched.
Trust Western media to not report much about this.
You find some of the details by explicitly searching for it. Positive developments do not tend to be on the frontpages.

I´m not thinking only of Russia and China. The problem extends from Iran to Equatorial Guinea to Venezuela and back through Central Asia. Turkey is getting a whiff, so is Hungary. Israel seems to be turning into a rather ugly little state led by arch nationalists, and the US presidency exhibits a very troubling autocratic mindset and moral flexibility which will eventually lead to dictatorship unless something is done about it (and this applies to presidents from both parties). The problem is widespread.
I will now put on my body armour and wait for the stones to fly.

Fernando Leanme
You conclude your analysis saying

I will now put on my body armour and wait for the stones to fly.

Well, I for one strongly agree with you. But I write to add two points.
In my opinion, the above article reports a sign that the problem has peaked when it reports.

The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.

No longer can the totalitarians stealthily creep towards disruption of economies. The set-backs to their actions in Germany, UK, Canada and Australia have set a trend that they need to directly oppose. Otherwise their attempt at quiet revolution will have been for nothing.
Indeed, on other WUWT threads totalitarians are trying to pretend they are merely socialists. But, as the above article states, we are confronted by communism of the soviet kind.

I had considered going to the Vancouver climate march after reading about it in the Vancouver Sun :
However, I ended up riding my bike for 8 hours the day before, covering over 90 kilometers and I doubted that I could get to the rally by 1 pm, especially since I am rarely even out of bed by 1 pm. I considered printing out a few copies of the Moncton 17 years 11 months no global warming graphic for the rally. The TV reports here said a few hundred people showed up. I was not one of them, physically or spiritually 🙂
Here is my comment on that opinion piece above to a teacher at University of B.C. that made a comment there :
Bill Winder · Teacher at The University of British Columbia (UBC)
Deniers, please see:
Reply · · September 21 at 10:10am
Gary Mount · Simon Fraser University
I’m a “Denier”. I’m also a computer scientist and a mathematician. I’m also a climate science researcher. The skepticalscience web site is a terrible web site to learn about climate science. Its basically a P.R. site. The best site for news and articles on climate science is of course wattsupwiththat.
The problems with this opinion piece are many. First, the 1 C increase in temperatures since the beginning of measuring of temperature with thermometers contains half of that warming during the years when humans could not possibly have had anything to do with the temperature increase. CO2 levels only began to increase sufficiently starting around 1950. The rate of warming during the known natural warming is of the same rate and duration as the possible human warming. Why couldn’t this later warming be natural as the earlier known natural warming?
The greenhouse gases warm the planet by an additional 30C. The naturally occurring quantity of CO2 at the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm has most of the warming effect with the additional quantity to todays 400 ppm having a diminished effectiveness to warm. This is the well known logarithmic effect of increased CO2 quantity.
The RSS satellite atmospheric temperature measurements as of to the end of August 2014 show no global warming, no warming trend at all, for the most recent 17 years and 11 months.
The average temperature of the earth increased from 288K in 1880 to about 288.8K today. We know that at least half of that warming was natural as I pointed out above.
The IPCC itself says that climate change has not happened yet. Read their scientific reports for yourself if you don’t believe me.
the 2C so called consensus limit is just a made up number. No science backs it up, it was just a show of hands by politicians. The 6C number is the most extreme limit if climate sensitivity to CO2 is high, but it has become apparent that climate sensitivity is much lower than first conceived.
Also, CO2 is plant food and its increased levels are helping to green the planet.
I’ve done the math.
Reply · · 1 · September 22 at 3:07am

Tommy E

“I ended up riding my bike for 8 hours the day before, covering over 90 kilometers”
I am hoping that bicycle ride was 90km out, and 90km back for a total of 180km in that 8 hours … or that the ride was 90km uphill on at least an eight percent grade, or that there was a 4 hour stop in the middle for lunch. If it really was 90km in 8 hours, maybe it is time for a new bike, preferably one with gears.
Soon, they will want to tax your bicycle for carbon emissions from all of that heavy breathing you perform while pedaling.

I am onto my third bike for the year as I have worn out the first two and in fact am using my mothers bike. I stopped off for lunch/dinner. It was hot out and there is traffic and traffic lights. I carry a back pack with my water, tablet and smart phone, toonies and loonies 🙂 . My riding pants that I can cinch up to pseudo shorts kept requiring re-adjustments. A train caused me to reroute to an overpass. I stopped to drink water at frequent intervals. Just a few days earlier I had been hauling heavy equipment onto and off of my roof for doing a tar – tar paper – tar – gravel repair to my tar and gravel roof. It got dark before I made it home and one section of my ride required me to go very slowly or I would ride off the bike path (on-coming car lights blind me) like I did once before and fell into thorny berry bushes on a 45 degree slope on my back and had great difficulty finding something to grab onto.
I was also sight seeing, and I pace my self. Here is a map of my route home from my lunch stop, 55 Km according to the map software:comment image

Steve P

Not all bicycling is about how fast you go, or far.

Good letter.


The environmental movement is a broad spectrum. There are people who believe in (responsible) free enterprise at one end, democratic socialists and tree-hugging communists at the other. A rally of this size was always going to attract a wide range of opinion.
You do yourself no favors by editing out moderate voices and imagery.

Stephen Richards

As far as anybody could see there were no moderates at these marches.

Do not underestimate communists. They have often coopted causes as there own. The UN has openly praised China for their leadership in climate related activities while condemning the west.(as if you could believe anything coming out of a communist state) I fully expected to see a number of communist at these rallies. WHY? Because it is a communist cause to eliminate capitalism. What better way to make up a cause. It can happen here. Read how Mao took over China. Many things that are happening in this country happened in China. One is areas that are controlled by gangs or criminals. And most people in China didn’t even take the communist seriously because they were so small and ineffective. But what they were was brutal and controlling. Do you have a little capitalist in your heart?


Mao came to power because the USA forced Chiang Kai-shek to take his party into a coalition.
Describing todays China as communist is simply wrong even though the Chicoms kept their name. Important difference to the USSR – profits are not forbidden.

Describing life under Mao as anything other than horrible is just wrong. Life under Mao could be more accurately described as hell on earth. 1984 is just a reversal of 1948. Mao surpassed Stalin, and certainly Hitler in both control, cruelty, and the number of people murdered. Any body that remotely supports communism is either extremely ignorant or extremely evil. Nothing has ever shaped my opinion about good and evil as the existence of communism.

Steve P

As much as anything, it was Truman’s refusal to fund, arm, and train the KMT, that allowed Mao’s communist forces to prevail in the Chinese civil war“…Although General Marshall stated that he knew of no evidence that the CPC were being supplied by the Soviet Union ..”, (Wiki)

Mike McMillan

“Capitalism is killing the planet,” huh?
Socialism only kills people, 115,000,000 last I time looked. But they weren’t doing it right. This bunch’ll do a much better job this time around.


I’ve had the same thought for some time now. State socialism is the largest mass killer in history, but our rapidly failing memory of the terrible slaughters of the 20th century may in some small measure reduce enthusiasm for explicit Marxism in the 21st.
However, environmentalism is the shiny new moral ideology. Back in the 1960s through the 1980s, the reasonably modest objectives of environmentalists at that time probably even helped on balance.
As always seems the case though, success breeds excess. If anyone wants to take bets, my guess is that the great mass killer of the 21st century will be environmentalism. By some accounts the banning of DDT has already killed 40 million, and that is just the beginning.

Given that the watermelons obviously now believe the only way they can convince people to support their cause is by indirection, you have to wonder what is really going through their heads.

Keith Willshaw

Lets not get confused by Putin’s support for anti-fracking groups. That’s nothing to do with communism its just business, the oligarchs who run Gazprom want a captive market.
As for communism the DPRK which is the last real communist country on the planet is not exactly known for its high standard of living or pristine environment. In fact the last UN report indicated an environmental collapse with contaminated drinking water and unacceptable levels of air pollution from domestic burning of coal and wood. Entire forests have been burnt as firewood and treecover fell by 40% in the last 20 years.
The reality is that when the state is the sole arbiter of good and bad by definition anything they do becomes good. Protesting about pollution in the old GDR or USSR would qualify you for a free bed in a psychiatric institution or re-education centre. In the DPRK you would just disappear.


Keith Willshaw
September 24, 2014 at 5:04 am
“Lets not get confused by Putin’s support for anti-fracking groups. That’s nothing to do with communism its just business, the oligarchs who run Gazprom want a captive market. ”
Well if Putin supported anti-fracking groups I would agree with you, it would be business. We do know that UAE financed the Matt Damon anti fracking film.
But again, is there any evidence that Putin does similar things? I do not find any.

Alan Robertson

Lest we forget, The Sierra Club efforts against evil coal were certainly financed in large part, bt the oil/natural gas industry.


The last thing we want is a witch-hunt. Some of the above posts sound like old-style McCarthyites.
The demonstraters are just doing what they do: demonstrate. The issue isn’t important. This year it’s climate, next year it’ll be something else, like nukes or muslims or terms of trade. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. Whatever the issue, 99% of them won’t have a clue about it. They like a nice day out, don’t we all?
So drop the C-word, posters.

Eustace Cranch

When I see a known poison spreading into the public square, I will call attention to it in no uncertain terms.
No, I will not “stop”, thank you very much.

Andrew, if they advocate communism then they are communists. “Communist” isn´t an insult, it´s a political stance. As a refugee from a communist dictatorship I have no problem discussing the issue. And if I see communists using climate Trojan horses to push forward their ideas I must object.

Walter Cronanty

These folks, and their predecessors, have been saying the same thing for decades. While the “issue” you say “isn’t important” and apparently changes from year to year, the cause for which the issue is raised is extremely important and has never changed – complete power and control.
Today, climate change is the disguise, or “issue,” used to further their cause. While you may blanch at the term, they are Communists – indeed, they are self-professed Communists. And it’s important that people understand they are frauds, merely using the guise of concern about the environment to attain their real goal.

Owen in GA

I will call a communist a communist when they post the CPUSA platform on their posters.
I love how Senator McCarthy has been vilified for things that occurred in the HOUSE Un-American Activities Committee. People don’t seem to understand that all that stuff with the black lists and most of the famous testimony was not done by or for McCarthy.
When the wall fell and Yeltsin threw open most of the closed KGB files, the people who went and read through the files were shocked by how widespread the KGB’s agents were in the government, particularly at the State Department, but also inside the Roosevelt administration in general. McCarthy barely scratched the surface. It makes me wonder if perhaps the KGB hadn’t also infiltrated their sympathizers into the faculty lounges of most of the major journalism schools, because the demonization of McCarthy has been very thorough.


Spot on. The evil label of “McCarthyism” was/is a media-construct by the history-revisionists a la Orwell. Look at what’s happened since — pretty much complete infiltration of the media, academia, unions, NGOs — local and even the federal government. I think Khrushchev’s 1960 UN rant had it right — they are burying us (tho he didn’t anticipate the USSR would collapse so quickly). He knew enough from experience & history that corruption, greed & poor education would eventually bring down such a free culture. Of course, the founding fathers knew & warned of this too.

Steve P

The infamous blacklists, by the way, were created by the movie industry – Hollywood – and not the House of Representatives.

In 1947, the committee held nine days of hearings into alleged communist propaganda and influence in the Hollywood motion picture industry. After conviction on contempt of Congress charges for refusal to answer some questions posed by committee members, the “Hollywood Ten” were blacklisted by the industry. Eventually, more than 300 artists—including directors, radio commentators, actors and particularly screenwriters—were boycotted by the studios…

In his testimony before the HUAC, Reagan named several members of his union as communist sympathizers.
“The Great Communicator”

Indeed…the NSA Venona Project anyone??

Steve P

The problem with your mangled view is that Joe McCarthy was right, and the evidence is parading right before your eyes. Better open ’em.

nutso fasst

McCarthy may have been right about communists in media and government, but his blacklisting was akin to Kennedy’s call for jailing of dissenters. McCarthy’s drunken tirades made the communists he was attacking sound reasonable in comparison. Both extremes in that debate promote a police state without seeming to understand that is what they are enabling.
Labeling climate scaremongering as a communist conspiracy is not helpful. I suspect the Marxists are just another bunch of useful idiots.

Steve P

nutso fasst
September 24, 2014 at 7:52 am
Yours is the typical incorrect view about McCarthy. Please read, right above:
Owen in GA
September 24, 2014 at 6:27 am

truth hurts huh?
mccarthy was right more often then he was wrong.
now thats not an endorsement of the house unamerican activities setup, not sure I could ever really want to defend that.

I agree with Andrew. The communist/socialist groups that showed up for the People’s March, or whatever it was called, piggybacked onto the event and got publicity on national levels they wouldn’t have got otherwise. Of course, Avaaz and were going to let them participate: they didn’t have enough people otherwise, because the march for Avaaz and wasn’t about ideology, it was about fundraising and a PR play. In NYC, at least, the communist/socialist groups were not allowed to participate in the message. Guess it got away with them in SanFran, etc.
In essence, you have splinter political groups piggybacking on a movement they perceive as ascendent. The prediction by solar physicists in 2018 on upcoming Cycle 25 might dampen their enthusiasm.


Here is a little chant for a future skeptics march.
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho,
Where did the climate change all go
Not in the ocean, not in the sky
Makes an alarmist want to cry.
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho,
Where did the climate change all go
Not in the North, not in the South
Look at the alarmists open mouth.
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho,
Where did the climate change all go
Not in the West, not in the East
The last 10 years has changed the least.

Rick Morcom

I understand that there is some relevance to this posting, but it saddens me to see politics brought into it again, no matter how abhorrent communism may be to some people. By far the biggest problem with the entire climate debate is the introduction of politics and political agendas. I would far rather see this site sticking purely to science.

Eustace Cranch

Please tell me how we can discuss climate issues without bringing politics into it. It’s a crucial part of the debate.
At any rate, the alarmists started this, not the skeptics.

Rick Morcom

The political aspects of climate change are very valid and need to be debated, for sure. But this is the one site I can go to for unbiased science – I love the pure observational research which is done on these pages, especially the reference pages which are truly factual, and not opinion, and cannot be swayed by political bargaining. I wish we could dispense with all of the “grouping” terms – skeptic, denier, warmist, left, right, watermelon, and so on. Anthony does a fantastic job with the science of climatology and I appreciate it, but there are other places to debate the politics. For what it’s worth, I consider myself left of center, liberal, whatever you want to call me. Unfortunately a number of posters lump all of us ‘liberals’ together – which has nothing to do with science whatsoever, and just detracts from the value of the science presented here.

It´s too late. The issue ranges from pure science to appied science to engineering to economics and on to policy and politics. This particular post is about “the color of the climate social movement”. Some of us did notice quite a few “environmentalists” are also advocating communism. Some of them also advocate vegetarianism. But I don´t find vegetarianism to be nearly as threatening to my freedom and human rights.


Dude. Jackson County, OR just banned; read that carefully B-A-N-N-E-D, ALL GMO foods. Completely and totally. Yes, the vegans are a serious threat to freedom, human rights, and nutrition, once they get enough power.


Rick Morcom
September 24, 2014 at 5:14 am
“I would far rather see this site sticking purely to science.”
Happy to oblige as soon as the warmist scientists like Schellnhuber refrain from insisting on worldwide political change. They started it, not we. Well to be precise Maurice Strong started it in 1971.

Rick Morcom

“They started it”
… is a childish argument, which gets us nowhere.

Steve P

Ah, so determination of who did what is childish.
Without accountability, there will be neither justice, nor truth.


Rick Morcom
September 24, 2014 at 7:02 am
““They started it”
… is a childish argument, which gets us nowhere.”
So you think ignoring the obvious will to power of the communist-socialist movement will help?
Of course you don’t really think that, because you are a concern troll. You pretend to be concerned by articles that no one forces you to read.
So obviously such articles are hitting the mark. Warmist science is refuted in three sentences, there’s simply not much science to refute there. You want us to regurgitate that over and over again? Well I guess it just won’t happen. The political aspect is the one that continues to wreck the economies of the West and must be the primary target- Because politics cause warmist science, not the other way round.
Warmist science is downstream from politics.

Gary Pearse

Rick, if you have been around here for awhile, you will note that science is a strong focus. However, you must be aware that there is no scientific debate going on. We can science ourselves blue to little effect on the those who run the CAGW enterprise. The same names pop up that wanted to overthrow free enterprise and run the world in the 70s when they co-opted the global cooling scare (Ehrlich, Holdren [Obamas Science guy], Maurice Strong a Canadian Marxist living in China who created the UN Enviro agencies and ‘Frameworks’ and Agenda 21, David Suzuki…). Mandate of the newly created IPCC was to investigate mankind’s role in the global warming crisis – NOT to investigate IF humans were even the main cause. Surely, when anti-global warming zealots carry communism signs, there is a reason to talk about it on the world’s number one climate science blog.

Max Totten

The reason for a movement is just as important as the movement. I’ve debated many in the local newspaper and found them to be weak on science but strong on leftwing politics. Using common sense, the scientific method and facts found on wuwt I’ve proven that AGW never qualified as a theory for which I’ve been called insulting names but never refulted with facts.
It’s been stated on this site that engineers generally question CAGW but scientists(professors) support. D.C. has been called a city surrounded on 4 sides by reality. I’ve worked there and know it to be true and that unreality extends to those who contract with the govt.

Sorry Rick, but CAGW is nothing but politics.
Packaged as religion and ribboned with the illusion of science.
We have gone through the science.
The result? We do not know. Insufficient duration of data,insufficient good data.
Evidence for measurable AGW? Still waiting.
But the science has stalled on a wall of lies. This is what we have learned, the so called experts our tax funded investigators lied to us. They are documented as willing to lie to further their agenda.
Until the data used and the methods( however arcane) are fully public we cannot complete the scientific discussion.
Given that failure,thinking persons might follow the money.
Ouch, my money funnelled to the United Nations bureaucracy.
Bureaucrats at two levels of unaccountability, hog heaven.
Maurice Strong… Oh right..another model of moral rectitude.
How does sticking to the science, constructively counter a scam of this magnitude?
Sure science is necessary, if only to mock the extraordinary claims made by the UN, for which they have yet to provide their extraordinary evidence.

Rick Morcom

John, I agree with you that CAGW is very politically biased, that there are lies and deception involved, and the political, taxation and other ramifications are huge. These things should be challenged and mocked and stopped. However, this forum is not primarily a political one, and when our debate descends to “they started using dirty tricks, we have to defeat them, so we will do dirty tricks too”, then we’ve lost our credibility. If we stick to science and are able to prove purely scientifically that the small amount of warming we have seen in the last few decades does not indicate imminent catastrophe, we will have done our job. Attacking government policies and political ideologies is a very laudable aim, but personally I do not feel this is the right forum for that.

It is all about simple chemistry. Look up the Periodic Table of Elements. There you will see all the elements. “The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter can be changed from one form into another, mixtures can be separated or made, and pure substances can be decomposed, but the total amount of mass remains constant. We can state this important law in another way. The total mass of the universe is constant within measurable limits; whenever matter undergoes a change, the total mass of the products of the change is, within measurable limits, the same as the total mass of the reactants.”
The carbon in fossil fuels is combined with other molecules, like hydrogen, to form many variations of hydrocarbons. So what happens when you burn fuel? What’s left over? From the back of a modern car, you don’t see anything coming out. When the carbon in the fuel is internally combusted, it bonds with the oxygen available in the air intake. They are bonded together in holy matrimony in the form of anthropogenic CO2. That’s the name of that game. Anyone who doubts it needs to brush-up on middle school beginning chemistry. The Law of Conservation of Matter cannot be repealed or amended. We’re stuck with it.
Search YouTube for “Years of Living Dangerously”. It’s a Showtime series, but you can watch the first 1-hour episode. It will help you understand the issues.

Owen in GA

I hate to throw cold water, but it was amended by Einstein and others in the early 20th century. The conservation of Mass-Energy is inviolate, not Mass. Matter can change to energy or the sun and nuclear power plants would not work. There are cases of high energy photons becoming an electron-positron pair observed in the laboratory. Also, CO2 in the high atmosphere is subject to neutron bombardment to change the form of the carbon and add mass (the product has less mass than the reactants in this case [m(C13 +N)>m(C14)). It is also true that when measured at the very precise end of the scale, chemical bonds change the mass of the reactant verses the product because some of the mass (a very minuscule amount) goes into bond energies.
Other than that, it is a good point for standard temperature, pressure and energy regimes ie the normally observed world.


Where I live, the local organizer was interviewed and stated that (and I paraphrase) ‘What we do to stop global warming will also help and improve our water, air, environment, and lifestyle; stopping warming is just a part of why carbon/fossil fuel use needs to end’.
They are beginning to pivot.
It doesn’t matter that there is not a problem … what matters is that they have a solution.
It is absolutely political. It always has been. What they are doing is using the climate (“warming” – “change” – “disruption” – “next adjective” …) as a tool to do something. Some do it to get paid, some do it because they need to be part of something big to justify their self image, but almost everyone that has climbed on the bandwagon is there because they are anti-capitalist in their leanings.
If you don’t call attention to the politics then the people like Kennedy will be able to pivot and carry the useful idiots with them as followers.


Socialism does not mean communism, just fyi


Socialism is the stage that is necessary before communism can begin, by a voluntary dissolution of the Socialist State, and that will be the beginning of history. We have read our Marx, thank you very much, Ohflow.


Why do you use ‘we’ like youre a part of some exclusive group? You dont call planks ladders, nor do you call them crosses/houses/whatever you can make of planks. I have no problem with outing the activists who have no clue what theyre protesting for/against, but I just wish it could be done without labeling or dirt being flung.

With respect to “OhFlow”, the “We” correctly refers to those people who accurately observe and call out the underlying ideology that is driving this entire issue. Maybe the “useful idiots”, as Lenin labeled them, don’t understand what they are really asking for, but the footsoldiers of a movement never do.
“Climate Change” is the current manifestation of a movement started by Marx, empowered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kims in Korea, which seeks to destroy all western civilisation as we know it,so that their ideological mates can take totalitarian power. If you don’t understand that, at it’s core, that is what the entire “Climate Change” movement is really about, then you don’t understand the issue at all.
That is why the actual “science” really means almost nothing at all to our opponents – it never has mattered, not in the slightest bit. It is just the current tool they are seeking to use to enable their rise to power, since they have lost the ability to impose their will by physical force.
Although, as Robert Kennedy’s comments yesterday about jailing his climate opponents made clear, the use of physical force remains something that their leaders dearly long for, and is something they would immediately go for as soon as they achieved even a small modicum of the power they seek.
So, people can hide their eyes from this, or pretend that these are just some simple, misguided fools. They are not. They are the enemies of our lives, of our future, and of our civilization.
They are not just wrong, they are evil.


September 24, 2014 at 5:54 am
“Why do you use ‘we’ like youre a part of some exclusive group?”
A figure of speech; the group I am in is surely not exclusive, as you can become part of it simply by reading about history.
” You dont call planks ladders, nor do you call them crosses/houses/whatever you can make of planks”
That is true; and we have indeed never observed the transition from socialism to communism in the Marxian sense. Therefore all the genocides in the socialist regimes happened under socialism, not under communism.
If that makes you any happier. You said
“Socialism does not mean communism, just fyi”
and all I wanted to say is, we know the difference, Ohflow. Maybe you knew it as well; you didn’t tell; I can’t know.

You claim to know the difference between socialism and communism.
If you do then why do you pretend they are the same and that one is responsible for the evils of the other?
Personally, having read many of your posts on WUWT, I suspect you are a communist supporter attempting to muddy the distinction you say you know.

I am consider right wing by by socialist daughter. Neither of us equates socialism with communism – at least not strongly. I don’t see Denmark, Norway, Finland and France becoming “Communist” any time soon. Of course, I may be looking through the rose coloured glasses of a fairly socialized country – Canada. Some things are good, some not so much. I have lived under “socialist” leaning governments and very right wing governments. Not sure either worked well, but both worked. They all take too much of our income and spend it poorly (in someone’s opinion) but I am not sure it makes much difference. The old British show, “Yes Minister” followed by “Yes Mr. Prime Minister” comes to mind. Darwin was right all along.


September 24, 2014 at 7:12 am
You claim to know the difference between socialism and communism.”
You got that one right.
“If you do then why do you pretend they are the same and that one is responsible for the evils of the other?”
Reading comprehension. They are stages. Marx doesn’t explain why the socialist state dissolves voluntarily, and we have never observed it and never will so the Beginning Of History via the Golden Age of Glorious Communism will never actually happen.
“Personally, having read many of your posts on WUWT, I suspect you are a communist supporter attempting to muddy the distinction you say you know.
Then read them again because you have not understood them.

Ohflow, it depends on where you are at. The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was as communist as they come. Here in Spain we have several parties which label themselves as “leftist” but offer a rather wide spectrum of socialist ideas. Venezuela has the United Socialist Party nominally advocating communism as an end point, but they are mostly a corrupt bunch of thieves subservient to the Cuban dictatorship. The Cuban dictatorship in turn labels itself Marxist and Communist but it´s a military oligarchy trying to transform into a neo fascist regime.
In the USA most would be socialists dread the word, as they dread the word communist. However, if we read individual websites and magazines we can see they have a fairly large group of communists who do hide as “Progressives”. This group does use the environment as a Trojan horse to advocate redistribution, increased taxation, ,and a very top down form of government. They also advocate intolerance and supression of free expression when they gain power.
The Venezuelan experience is indeed a great example of how a group of individuals can hide behind a mask and eventually install a very abusive dictatorship. In this case we could be facing a very long term (50 to 100 years or more) struggle against people who happen to be communists using the environment as a trojan horse. I don´t think the problem is serious in the USA at this time. Here in Europe I do think they have a possibility unless the European Union´s economy returns to normal growth. Normal growth is impossible if the EU follows the environmental lobby´s zany proposals. And therein lies the rub.

Walter Cronanty

Well said.


Thanks thats a very informative post.
As a fellow European, both you and me have seen democratic socialists being a majority party in many of our neighbouring(and in my) countries. Does not make us nor those who voted for the party, communists. The enviromental lobby crippling our economic is true and disgusting however.
As a person skeptical of the IPCCs projected temperatures, because well you people know why. I dont sympathise with the notion that theres some behind the scenes socialistic/communistic agenda. I find it a bad look for this site and dervied solely from peoples vivid imaginations.
I don’t post here much, I feel I like the background and/or the knowledge necessary to dvelve into deep discussions. I do however post every once in a while when I feel like an approach is being used that is not beneficial towards the skeptical side of the discussion.
I am going to go back to lurking now, but thanks for the responses people. .

In a republic, having a socialist party leading the nation does not make the nation socialist. It probably means it is headed in that direction. But give them unfettered power, and you will find out what a real socialist country is like.

@Fernando Leanme 6:15 am
Well said. But the first line of the 2nd paragraph confused me.
In the USA most would be socialists dread the word [what word?], as they dread the word communist.
What word were you referring? “neo-fascist”? “Marxist?”
Whatever “-ism” each of us think infects the Climate Change Political movement, I think there was indisputably on display a call for the end of Capitalism. Perhaps that is an advantageous battleground. While it might be difficult to get these people to admit to one or another form of collectivism, they may be eager to express disdain for Capitalism. At which point, they must choose where to take a stand.
Me? I would like nothing better to end Crony Capitalism, which is somewhere between Mercantilism and Fascism.
One must recognize that all parts of the government do not operate in the same political dynamic. The EPA, for instance, by increasingly ignoring of the concept of private property, has gone way past Fascism into a realm where
– the State has more control over property than the supposed owner,
– control over that property is centralized,
– directed by unelected government officials,
– adhering to 5, 10, and 20 year plans
– with powers of police and administrative fine.
– and the power to make their own law
– and have what passes for a justice system defer to their authority.
Quickly now, what word best describes such a socio-economic system?

M Courtney

Thanks, I was going to post that too. Socialism does not mean communism.
Surprising amount of political illiteracy in the comments and the main post.
If you can’t tell spot the odd one out between Francois Hollande, Tony Blair and Stalin then you may want to refrain from commenting on politics.

Stephen Richards

Communism appears so close to socialism as to be indistinquishable. In France, all parties are socialist relative to the USA republicans and the old (before cameron) tory party. Rather bizaarely I detect some mouvement away from socialism here which I find really interesting. Our last local council, of which I was a member, was a mixture of communists, socialists, and self interested farmers and one was starting his own business along with his parents farm which he ran and his day job in charge of an aluminium windows business.
The communists were what I would call genuine old guard while the socialists were the ” we must keep our jobs at all costs” brigade but could never fully explain how that could happen except that all the “rich people” should be paying more tax ! (ring a bell USA ? Obama?).
The huge problem for everyone in europe is the eu commissioners. They are the old USSR model and are fully paid up socio-commis. Labels such as socialist and communist are probably not the best way to catergorise these people but I can’t think of another at the moment.

Gary Pearse

One mustn’t get too theoretical in politics. Every system works very well in theory assuming honest motives …benevolent and enlightened dictators and the like… Churchill’s famous remark comes to mind re how horrible capitalism is. However, it’s humans that can’t be trusted. Leave any party in power for an extended period and it becomes their entitlement and things then drift away from whatever honest motives there might have been – the total corruption of the Liberal Party in Canada is a good example (I won’t bore you with Gomery Inquiry). Some point to UK’s moribund economy with the creation of the welfare state following WWII successes of Labour. This is why I like a situation where a suitably regulated, but not stifled goose can lay golden eggs. Don’t trust humans to regulate themselves but don’t harness them with too much leather.

Tim in Florida

To M Courtney and others;
Your comment: Socialism does not mean communism.
That may be your opinion but you should go back and read Ludwig von Mises’s book Planned Chaos. Socialism, Communism and Fascism are all cut from the same cloth and end in same outcome. The only difference is how fast you get to the point of jailing and killing your own people. You hear more and more of the “socialist” warmistas advocating for jail time, and many who advocate for population control.
And by the way for Dirk H. Puntin is a classic Fascist per the definition and through his actions.

more soylent green!

Communism is a form of socialism. Not all socialist are communists. Absolutely correct.
What most of these people are advocating is typically closer to the form of socialism better known as fascism. Not NAZI-ism, but fascism as invented by Mussolini. (Not all fascists are NAZIS, either.)


How do you steal a bologna? Once slice at a time. Socialism isn’t a ‘thing’ unto itself; it’s a means to taking the whole bologna. Socialism is larval communism.


Tim in Florida
September 24, 2014 at 9:25 am
“And by the way for Dirk H. Puntin is a classic Fascist per the definition and through his actions.”
I guess because he clawed back some of the stuff that those honest hard-working Oligarchs from the Yeltzin area stole? Sorry, it would really help if you could point me to Putin’s fascist party program. Mussolini had one. For instance. Where is it?

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
-Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 – 1797)


And in another shocking development, later in the afternoon of the same day, the sun dipped below the horizon, bringing on darkness.
Of course green/left leaning people are strong supporters of forced reductions in fossil fuel use, since that would reduce CO2 emissions, inhibit economic growth, and encourage public demands for greater ‘economic justice’ (AKA confiscation and redistribution of material wealth) as people become poorer due to expensive energy. This really is about as surprising as the sunset. Global warming alarm is and has always been primarily a political movement of the green left, and is only tangentially related to science. The underlying belief is that all private wealth is rightfully the property of ‘the people’, as Mr. Obama has already stated clearly.

Mike O'Neill

The climate debate is essentially about science and facts, not politics. There are plenty with a left perspective seeing the sense of the sceptic position, though granted a minority for now unfortunately, while billionaires like Eric Schmidt have jumped on the warmist bandwagon

Except that the climate debate is NOT about “science and facts” anymore, not even in the slightest sense.
If it was, everyone would accept that we don’t have enough knowledge to say what is happening, and since honest science accepts the null hypothesis as the starting point, then we would all agree that there is no basis on which to take policy action until we know more.
But that is now defined as a “political position”, isn’t it?
The “Climate Debate” is ALL politics, ALL the time. Which is why it can only be discussed, now and forevermore, in a political manner.
(I would modify your statement to say “there are plenty with a left wing perspective who suspect that their politico-pseudoreligious views have some holes in them, but they will never dare to speak out or act against their leaders.)

The Climate Debate is all politics.
Climate Science may be about science. But the DEBATE is all politics.
Even in its most purest form of ethics, it is a scientific study to determine a societal course of action.
One you go beyond the dispassionate recording of data and filing away and into recommendations of what WE should do, then it is political.

more soylent green!

They ain’t marching over science.


With young folks 18-25 Socialism seems to be great and capitalism Bad, I try to counter with Venezuela and mention that the Scandinavian countries only do well because of small populations and either oil or lots of world class businesses..Ikea, Volvo, Saab etc etc Communists still havent made too much of a comeback, but NK and Cuba are worth mentioning. The biggest problems I see are too much Govt.


Isn’t SAAB (at least the automotive arm) now owned by a Russian investor?

Stephen Richards

SAAB have been bought, Volvo is indian or chinese only IKEA remains of the 3. The Scandinavian economies are all struggling except were oil revenues are still strong. Their tax regimes are punitive and social cost enormous.


SAAB and Volvo ran on hard times because they made niche vehicles and got wrapped up with American ownership that didn’t particularly care about them beyond their brand identity. Ikea is healthy because they cater to a market that is otherwise largely passed over.


The US has substantially higher corporate income taxes. They’re not as ‘socialist’ as they appear when it comes to large corporations.


San Fran is still so 1960s. Get w/the plan. Communism became a bad word, so change the label to socialists, er, progressives, like all the other smart comrades have.


Actually, the uberhip place now is Ashland, OR. They’re beyond ‘progressive’. They’re ‘conscious’.
Seriously, that’s what they call themselves. No, really.


Maybe from
(von Mises’ remark on that page is very good)

Peter Miller

The only country which outlaws capitalism at the current time, Kim Jong Il’s communist paradise of North Korea.
So I guess it makes sense the greenies/alarmists/socialists are rooting for Kim’s type of paradise.


“Capitalism” is in fact not an “ism”, the word was invented by Marx and describes what people normally do – engage in free interactions. Most of these are banned in Cuba; like selling your house (for all I know); or importing a car.
So; how do you ban an -ism that is not an -ism? how do you ban all free exchanges between people? This is in practice not possible, but you can put many roadblocks in the way, like the fixed prices in Venezuela (BTW the third Reich started to fix prices ca. 1936 when a bit of inflation happened; it is a rather typical development under socialisms.)
It is not as easy as saying “From tromorrow on capitalism is forbidden.” You must start by making people beg for a license for interactions before they can do them. Taxes help a lot.

more soylent green!

Yes. Marx created the word “capitalism” as a derogatory term.


Not only that, capitalism is NOT the same thing as free enterprise. Big Capital is frequently at odds with economic libertarianism. See: TARP.

Tim in Florida

Dirk, the only difference between communism and fascism is the fig leaf of who owns the means of production. Supposedly in communism the people own the means of production. In Fascism there is still a façade of capitalism, but the government directs what each company can product, grants monopolies to favored supporters and appoints key executives and directors. The government under Fascism also can seize any and all corporate assets without due process. That is what Putin has repeatedly done with the Russian media companies, O&G companies, minerals, and I could go on and on. It does not matter what happened in the past it is only what Putin is doing now. That is in addition to rewriting the Russian constitution whenever he needs to stay in power or increase his power. His party is based on National Socialism — quite ironic isn’t it.

@Tim in Florida
I have finally found someone who understands what the “F” word is (Fascism) – govt. control of the means of commerce & production.
I take Socialism as govt. control of the people – “here Mr. Johnson, you can have this house, this car, this Health Care, this money (welfare)…but is is not very much & it’s not very good, but everyone gets the same thing. So shut up & be happy, your govt. is in control and here to help you. BTW – we are increasing your taxes to pay for all of this…and it’s all the rich peoples fault.” Of course, there are varying degrees of it’s implementation but it usually starts off small & grows over time as people become suckered in by it.
Communism is govt. control of…both? Geee, there’s alot of govt. control through there, eh? Maybe that’s the problem….
Just my $.02 – I’m sure there will be those who don’t agree

Lovely write up.i love. Pls visit and share the link with your friends to encourage my blogging. Thanks

Leon Brozyna

… and if their fantasies are fulfilled, they will discover the difference between being governed as happens now and being ruled as would happen under the system they’re calling for.


They decided flowery longhand writings of their innermost feelings on the failure of AGW (to tug at heartstrings) wasn’t working, so they said screw it lets be honest and try brute force this time so they went with imposing/threatening block letter socialist/communist posters.


I had the misfortune of clicking on the video link to Leonardo de Caprio’s speech at the UN. It was difficult to count how may errors, misdirections, obfusations and downright lies he managed to get out in the 3 minute clip. The only thing he said that was true was that he is an actor And I think some would say that that is debateable.

Jason H

There was no “hint” of Marxism” in NY. It was full blown and out for all to see, including sign up stations to join the Communist or Socialist parties. Oh, and these denouncers of Capitalism were selling t-shirts, buttons, and posters to raise money for their cause. You can’t just make this stuff up.

Most of these are banned in Cuba
In Cuba it is illegal to start your own business. All business is owned and run by the state. The state can never go bankrupt, no matter how bad the service provided. So for example, cars look like they are maintained by their owners. You repaint your car with a paint brush and house paint.
In the Philippines as a contrast, everyone can start a business. Car repair is a big business. Those car repair businesses that are no good, they quickly go bankrupt. The cars in PI are fantastic. Hand crafted chrome and stainless everywhere.
That is the difference between a command economy and a market economy. The command economy makes promises it need not deliver, because there is no alternative. The marget economy quickly weeds out false promises, but can fall prey to monopolies and collusion.
Most countries lie somewhere in between these two extremes.

My head is about to explode from all this “Peoples Climate March” fallout. Even WUWT has kind of gone “off the rails” from it’s usual science articles.
What bothers me here about this interview (which is supposed to be Leo DiCaprio) but is more about Bernie Sanders, is that what Sanders says is the message that most all of these people believe. It is not about the facts of science, they don’t want to hear facts. Sanders speaks for this administration and the MSM and what is happening in our government today. Give it a listen, it’s short:

Jason Calley

Marxism is a memetic plague, and a repeatedly demonstrated cure for over population. Perhaps that is why the CAGW crowd tend to embrace it.


It’s a little ironic when you consider how much further we’d be along in cleaning up the EPIC environmental catastrophes left by Soviet communism if we hadn’t been spending tens of billions of dollars on the AGW non-problem.

@M Courtney 6:52 am
Socialism does not mean communism.
Red herring, strawman, and ad hominen.
Few, if any, people here think these are the same.
Do you deny that they are neighbors?
Perhaps you would like to enumerate the differences?
There are differences. But not many and mostly by degree.
Indeed, thinking about it as a Venn Diagram.
While there is Socialism that is not Communism,
Is there Communism that isn’t Socialism?

Ya me, the t, f, k, one.
Let me help those herein.
All you have to do is look at William Ayers, understand the anti war commie types of the late 1960’s, understand Kerry is a made blade of the red commie knife in the back, know that the Clintons are more of the same and Obama is just the useful dark skinned Alins-key to the door of the tresuary and the undoing of the Armed Forces. They are the front line of the attempted take over and last trashing of the Constitution.
As you know the GreenPeace commies threw me out and told me they would use the final solution on me back in the 1970’s. So they have had time to breed a much worse gene pool of crazy poorly educated ground troops.
They as you and I know will force a fight in the streets and in the elected offices and will use the instruments of the Goverment to include the Armed Forces aginst U.S. and any one who tells the truth and will stand the ground.
Other than that, I do some odd things down on the Mexican/Texas border and send the film to U.S. Senators so that we can say later,,, yes they did know.
Later “Z”


Chunky say you crazy sockey stalker,,,,,,


Perfect. Because we all know how environmentally conscious the former U.S.S.R now Russia and China are. The insanity is stunning. Remember people nobody has done more for the planet than communists.
Beyond words really.

Jim G

As has been noted, green on the outside is generally red on the inside, like watermelons.


I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Naomi Klein’s newest book,
“This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate”.
It’s a manifesto for the upcoming Eco-socialist.


Hey, this was Oakland, not San Francisco!


The dirtiest environments in the world, for the last 50 or 60 years, can be found in communist countries.
So the claim that these guys care about the environment is laughable.


Not only that, in the so-called “capitalist” countries, the worst polluters are usually government operations. Sovereign immunity means they don’t have to worry about killer lawsuits.

more soylent green!

Because the cleanest places to live are all communist countries?


In today’s Financial Post…
Obama (fortunately not) Almighty
Like Marxism, climatism has no positive vision other than that it is preferable to a projected world of misery and chaos


The Aral sea (now defunct), the Aswan dam, and the disruption of the lower Nile eco-system, the massive impacts of Eastern European pollution under Soviet rule. Massive pollution of China.
Scratch a lefty and under the skin you find a hateful misanthrope

Alan Robertson

In answer to critics of this post who try to minimize the idea that there is a connection between Socialism, in its various guises and the totalitarianism which inevitably follows, here’s a thought from the leader of the National Socialist Worker’s Party- (paraphrased) ‘We don’t have to make the people all Socialists, we just have to make the government Socialist’.
That sentiment perfectly expresses what we have been seeing from the current US administration, via all of its bureaucratic tools, such as the EPA.

Dirk Pitt

We all knew there are far left loony types out there (Marxists, commies, etc), but the fact that McKibbenities had to resort to soliciting help from them to make the march look “populist” is telling of their desperation.

Theo Goodwin

“Brown & Green want us to “Decolonize the Climate,” which shows what can happen to your brain on academia.”
I first heard this line in the late eighties, from a tenured professor of philosophy no less. Her take was the very elemental “men colonize women.” Get it? How profound can one be?
Brilliant work as always, Zombie. People should be lining up to give you grants.

Robert W Turner

Of course, it’s these watermelon’s dreams to work as little as possible and reap just as much of the benefits from society as people that do work hard.

I’m using Delingpole’s brilliant ‘Watermelons’ as a subtle insult!:] Green on the outside, red on the inside and oh so messy if you smash them like a pinata with the skeptical truth!:]


More generally, Marxism, a religion based on coercion, which principally benefits a ruling minority (e.g. feudalism).
Oh, the end of the world is nigh! Frankly, I think the dodo (evolutionary dysfunction through abortion, etc.) scenario is more likely.

How interesting: When progressive scientists misbehave, it is a “religion.”
When Marxists misbehave, it is a “religion.”
When atheists misbehave, it is a “religion.”
When the State insists on using science to assume control, it is a “religion.”
Do you all think you might have a problem acknowledging the results of scientific paradigms, atheism, and the actions of deadly, centralized governments? Is this some kind of alchemy, in which all misbehavior is reinvented into “religion?”

more soylent green!

What is a highly-descriptive word blind, unquestioning belief in an ideology?
Another thought — perhaps his comment was using a metaphor?

Hi solent green. No that is not a metaphor.
Let’s use a concrete example. Peter Hitchens writes of his renowned brother: “My brother Christopher suggests that Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union was in fact a religious state. The specifically anti-religious character of the Soviet system under Stalin makes such a claim nonsensical.”
Do you agree? Should he be able to switch definitions like that?
I am just suggesting that every one should be more honest about the results of scientific paradigm shifts, and of very humanistic and atheistic systems. I really think the discussion will all be improved for it.


Well, if you believe that Man was created (however that came about) as a physical, living creature that also is endowed with a deep internal desire to connect to God in a spiritual (i.e, not in any dimension in the physical universe) manner, then we all have a religious aspect to us. It simply comes out of us in different ways. In my opinion, some (not all) of atheists ARE deeply religious, it just comes out in different ways. In my mind, the more angry an atheist is (Hitchens, for example) the more likely they really do, deep down inside, believe in God and basically hate him (for whatever reasons) , but, realizing that hating God is absurd, they attempt to bury Him by continually trying to convince themselves He does not exist. If God really does not exist, why all the nastiness, and venom? Makes no sense.
Science and religion are both enormously important. Religion is here to answer the questions that science cannot – such as, what is the actual value of you or me – like, how many chickens are we worth? How many pigs?
Both science and religion can be abused and misused . Science has been of enormous benefit to mankind, but science goes off the rails when it tries to do more than describe and quantify the physical universe God has created, for mankind’s benefit, and subsequently tries (demands!) to get into the moral arena.
CAGW is misanthropic at the very core and therefore fundamentally evil.


I am 100% for Capatilism, whats not to like in earning your keep by your merit and effort. Unfortunately the current system functions as crony capitalism, a diseased cousin of Capitalism.
Even so, socialism is not the answer, it is like fixing a barain tumor with a bazooka.

Steve O

“We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.”
— Obviously, communism is just what the doctor ordered. By implementing a messed up economic system unable to provide for the material well-being of people, there will be a massive economic contraction, widespread starvation, and reduced birth rates. All that suffering is sure to reduce carbon emissions.

Jim G

China is no longer communist, more like fascism/crony capitalism. Russia is probably more of a free market than the US, assuming you have enough firepower to protect your gains and bribe the right people. The US is more refined in it’s crony capitalism requiring the reporting of the bribes as campaign contributions. Lots more paperwork. In the end, though, in all systems, money runs the world and all forms of government bow to it.