Climate Change

A Parade of Progressive Causes at the People's Climate March

No Nukes, No Fracking, No GMOs, and Certainly No Capitalism

|

Pile of Signs
Reason

New York, September 21—The People's Climate March ambled genially down 6th Avenue in New York City Sunday afternoon. The March's slogan was "To Change Everything, We Need Everyone." Not everyone showed up, but the March did attract between 300,000 and 400,000 participants, making it by far the largest climate change mobilization in history. Prominent marchers included former Vice-President Al Gore, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and leading environmentalists including Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva, and Leonardo DiCaprio. The marchers hope to put pressure on the global leaders who will be gathering at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York later this week.  "When the people speak up and when the people march, the politicians will follow," shouted Danny Kennedy, activist and founder of the solar company Sungevity in a pep talk before the March.

Socialism
Reason

At the upcoming September 23rd U.N. Summit, the 120 or so heads of state and government who are attending are supposed to make initial pledges to reduce their countries' greenhouse gas emissions in a global effort to limit global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The final firm commitments are to be nailed down at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015.

Kill Capitalism
Reason

In the mobilization area on Central Park West between 61st and 86th Streets, the marchers sorted themselves into various affinity groups, e.g. faith-based organizations, scientists, students, labor unions, old folks, organic food enthusiasts, renewable energy proponents, indigenous peoples, and so forth. Wandering through the throngs prior to the March's kick off, it was apparent that every progressive cause can and does find a home in the climate change movement. The chief demand of the marchers is for "climate justice," which broadly entails redistributing wealth from the countries and industries that have benefited from the consumption of fossil fuels. "System change, not climate change," is the ubiquitous slogan. The system that they think needs changing is markets and private property. "We need a system based on people, not profits," shouted one marcher as he passed me by. I overhead one marcher explaining to another, "We must have a better capitalism; better than the malignant corporate system we have now."

Rude Koch
Reason

Among the chief capitalist villains were the Koch brothers and Monsanto. One marcher carried a sign simply urging "Arrest the Koch Brothers." A ruder placard exhorted, "Stop sucking Koch, Support Veterans for Green Job$." I did not manage to get a photo of it, but another marcher was wearing a makeshift hat that read: "Koch Brothers Love Stalin." Beats me.

Arrest Kochs
Reason

Notwithstanding the fact that cultivating modern biotech crops uses less fossil fuels and releases less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the assembled marchers damned Monsanto. Many of the marchers oddly believe that eating locally grown organic crops that take more labor and land to produce less food will somehow help stop global warming. In any case, the executive director of the Rodale Institute, Coach Mark Smallwood, told a crowd of demonstrators that he had in his hand a white paper on the power of regenerative agriculture to ameliorate climate change. In October, Smallwood plans to walk all the way from Kutztown, PA to Washington, DC (163 miles) to personally deliver his white paper to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It should be acknowledged that the vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, lab-grown meat could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent relative to farmed meat.

Stop Monsanto
Reason

Despite the condemnation of capitalism, it was somewhat amusing that it was thriving just a block over on Columbus Avenue where a street fair stretched for 20 blocks or so selling crepes, roasted corn, tortillas, honestly fake Murano jewelry, cell phone accessories, rugs, Kashmiri fabrics, lemonade and smoothies, baskets, and an extensive farmers market. Children could be diverted by play in all sorts of bouncy castles, slides, and climbing walls.

StreetFair
Reason

An overflowing garbage bin on Central Park West indicated that some marchers were not so averse to commerce as to forego quaffing designer coffees before setting off to march against capitalism.

Coffee
Reason

In the afternoon, I happened to be standing by a man holding a sign declaring, "Overpopulation Is Not A Myth." This provoked some marchers to come over to suggest to him that he was blaming the poor for their poverty. He responded that they were not the problem; rich Americans are the problem. Another guy, who was clearly not a marcher, approached to contend that Malthus had been proven wrong. The stalwart furiously responded that Malthus would be proved right and that the end was nigh.

Overpopulation
Reason

As it happens, Science just published an article last week arguing that earlier projections that world population would peak sometime toward the middle of this century are wrong. Why? Mostly because nearly all of the projected increase—4 billion people—will happen in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the forecast that world population will reach 11 billion by the end of this century basically assumes that Africa will remain an economic and political hellhole for the remainder of the century. That prospect seems unlikely.

No Fracking
Reason

Fracking aggravated a lot of the demonstrators. All kinds of artful placards alluded to the other f-word as a way of indicating their displeasure. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water. Yet, just last week a couple of new studies found that fracking as a technique to produce natural gas does not contaminate groundwater. And never mind that burning natural gas produces about half of the carbon dioxide that burning coal does.

No Nukes
Reason

Many marchers insist on banning another low-carbon energy source—nuclear power. In particular, some demand that the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River be closed down. This particular petition is just perverse since nuclear power is a big part of why New Yorkers emit annually on average about 8 tons of carbon dioxide per person, well below the U.S. average of 17 tons per capita.

No less an environmentalist than climatologist James Hansen and his colleagues have declared, "While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." The climate activists parading down 6th Avenue should bear in mind that Hansen is the climatologist who testified before Congress back in 1988 that climate change had already begun.

Enough for All
Reason

Finally, there is one placard with which I wholeheartedly agreed, "Enough, For All, Forever." Sadly, many of the marchers oppose the only system that has ever enabled hundreds of millions of people to rise above humanity's natural state of abject poverty.

Tomorrow I will be covering the "Flood Wall Street" mass sit-in featuring, among others, activist Naomi Klein. Slogan: "Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis."

See also Reason TV's "What We Saw at the People's Climate March" below:

NEXT: With a 'Fuck It,' TV Reporter Quits On-Air To Pursue Dream of Legalizing Marijuana

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is why we roll with the punches dude, always lol.

    http://www.Ano-Web.tk

    1. I wouldn’t call this a punch, anonbot. It’s more like someone tried giving a purple nurple and ended up caressing the nips till they stood on end.

  2. Maybe the Vulcans are right–the feels seem to get us into trouble more often than not.

  3. Ugh, I had an old friend go to this. I didn’t realize how large his hippie green boner was.

    1. Even in the midst of prosperity and unimagined material wellbeing, people crave the satisfaction of publically airing their grievances. Et in arcadia ego.

  4. Needs moar puppet heads.

    1. Pantomime Princess Margaret.

    2. Put your hand inside the puppet head.

  5. The chief demand of the marchers is for “climate justice,” which broadly entails redistributing wealth from the countries and industries that have benefited from the consumption of fossil fuels.

    “Or… stay with me, here. We could just steal from the rich, and KEEP IT.”

    1. But. . .wouldn’t that make us the rich?

    2. So they want to take money from themselves and give it to poor Africans?

      Can’t they do that already?

    3. It doesn’t matter how wealthy the protesters are, “The Rich” always turn out to be some OTHER bastards.

      Last time i visited my grandmother, she told me that all of America’s problems were because of “The Rich.” She, meanwhile, is sitting on millions of dollars of stock left to her by my grandfather, and is the wealthiest person i know.

      ?\_(?)_/?

      1. In that case, you should enthusiastically agree with anything she says so that she will redistribute it to you upon her death.

  6. It should be acknowledged that the vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, lab-grown meat could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent relative to farmed meat.

    And on still another hand, we could just eat the fucking vegans.

    1. This kind of aggressive talk is dangerous. Vegans have light-speed ships and kinetic weapons.

      Oh, wait, you didn’t mean aliens from a planet orbiting Vega. My apologies.

      1. Well of course not, PL. Everyone knows that aliens from the planet orbiting Vega reproduce by asexual means.

        1. Judging by the lack of children in their families, the local vegetarian-vegans appear to be trying the same thing.

    2. But wouldn’t we then need more land to grow vegetables, along with more fertilizer, pesticides, etc. if everyone was vegan?

      1. Shh. Don’t mention reality to a watermelon. They get upset.

      2. Don’t worry about fertilizer – there will never be a shortage of that.

      3. Not if 90% of the human race was eliminated.

        1. If the 90% these idiots want to get rid of were eliminated, the remainder would freaking starve, because they have an absolute incapacity to produce anything useful.

          1. That is, until we develop a way to survive off Bullshit alone.

            Come to think of it, DC might prosper very well in such a society.

            1. Did you hear about the Zombie outbreak in Washington D.C.? They starved…

        2. So the Khmer Rouge had the right idea?

      4. ORGANICKKKKKKKKKKKS!!!

        In their utopian world, they force organic farming on all of us, completely ignoring the fact that organics use more dangerous pesticides, and would not even feed 4 billion of us worldwide.

        1. 2,4-D is less harmful than pyganic?

      5. No, we’d need less. Feeding vegetables to animals and then eating the animals is generally much less efficient than just eating the vegetables.

        I’m not suggesting you become a vegan, I don’t think there is a need to, but a vegan diet is objectively more efficient.

        1. I’m not suggesting you become a vegan, I don’t think there is a need to, but a vegan diet is objectively more efficient.

          I don’t think you’re accounting for all the factors here. A farmer can keep as much livestock as s/he wants for an additional year paying only as much as it costs to feed that piece of livestock. To store thousands of pounds of extra vegetables that nobody would eat for a year would cost an exorbitant amount of money, and most would still spoil.

          Basically, meat is like a “battery” for food. Rather than being forced to eat it right now, you can keep it around til next season to eat it.

          1. Meat is a battery, but quite an inefficient one. Each trophic level you go up, 90% of the energy is “lost”.

            1. And the byproduct is CO2 no less.

            2. “Meat is a battery, but quite an inefficient one. Each trophic level you go up, 90% of the energy is “lost”.”

              Versus not having anythiing at all.

              And your claim is awfully questionable.

          2. Believe me, accounting for ALL factors, eating plants is vastly more efficient.

            When it comes to beef, it’s about 10% efficient. That is, it takes at least 10 lbs of grain or other protein to create 1 lb of beef protein. Chickens are more efficient – only about 3 or 4 to 1. Pigs aren’t as bad as cows.

            Factory farmed fish are quite efficient.

            At the minimum, eating less beef goes a long way toward cleaning up the world…

            1. What about free range pastured livestock? People can’t digest grasses.

            2. “Believe me, accounting for ALL factors, eating plants is vastly more efficient.”

              While the fact that you’re a shameless fucking liar who is regurgiating debunked propaganda created by the Animal “Rights” cults ensures that most people here won’t be doing that, you can rest assured knowing that many of us at least “believe” that you’re stupid enough to believe your own bullshit.

        2. Then try eating field corn. 😀

        3. I’m not suggesting you become a vegan, I don’t think there is a need to, but a vegan diet is objectively more efficient.

          But it doesn’t produce humans.

          Humans are the animal that discovered that there’s more energy in a pound of meat than there is in a pound of vegetables.

          Eating plants is efficient for herbivores–for a given definition of efficiency. A not small number of herbivores wind up defecating huge amounts of undigested plant matter. Hardly efficient.

          1. “Humans are the animal that discovered that there’s more energy in a pound of meat than there is in a pound of vegetables.”

            Hmm, somehow BILLIONS of Chinese and Indians ended up becoming human with meat being a very small part of their diets!

            Where do you get your “facts”? Do you make them up while stoned?

            Human didn’t discover what you said. Rather, they were quite poor at the science of agriculture and raising animals was easier. It’s only relatively recent history that brought us the factory farms and mass production of beef, etc. which is mostly an industrial application of fossil fuels (for fertilizer for the feed, harvesting, production, transportation, etc.).

            But, listen – you go ahead and fool yourself that you are being a natural human when you consume that Burger King.

            1. It’s only relatively recent history that brought us the factory farms and mass production of beef, etc. which is mostly an industrial application of fossil fuels

              Right–because agriculture isn’t industrialized at all in this country.

            2. Craig, you delightful child, humans became human BEFORE they discovered animal husbandry OR agriculture.

              And there were not ‘billions’ of any type of human until very recently–much less humans who could be called ‘Chinese’ or ‘Indian’.

              But of course you don’t know that.

            3. “Hmm, somehow BILLIONS of Chinese and Indians ended up becoming human with meat being a very small part of their diets!”

              And the fact that those people are fucking starving to death doesn’t seem to dawn on you, being that you’re a complete fucking moron who thinks that just because you’re dumb enough to believe shit you make up on the spot, the rest of us have to follow suit.

        4. except that people can’t eat grass, you fucking moron

        5. “No, we’d need less. Feeding vegetables to animals and then eating the animals is generally much less efficient than just eating the vegetables.”

          Uh, no, you’d need more. LOTS more. Meat delivers the most calories and proteins per bite by far. So you needs LOTS more crops to fill the gap which requires LOTS more land which requires LOTS more everything else.

          Veganism is objectively and demonstrably LESS efficient.

    3. And on still another hand, we could just eat the fucking vegans.

      Are they grass or grain-fed?

      1. Maybe slops fed – like hogs used to be. Long pig anyone?

        1. I wonder what kind of bacon they would make?

      2. “Are they grass or grain-fed?”

        Are they free range or mom’s basement?

    4. Farmed meat or lab-grown meat = false choice. How about we return the millions of acres currently dedicated to feed crops and/or biofuels ‘to the forest’ and let the animals eat what they are supposed to.

      1. How about “we” just leave the farmers and ranchers alone and not make decisions for them?

        1. “How about “we” just leave the farmers and ranchers alone and not make decisions for them?”

          Hmm…there is no group of welfare receivers larger than these!

          Funny how the same people who often want to take welfare away from the poor and disabled then defend those who take the most!

          Amazing. Farms have been subsidized for over a century…and even well before when you consider much of the land was given to them free. In more recent times, they have lobbied and bribed the gubment to keep their dangerous foods in a top space on the food pyramid…even though science says otherwise.

          And you want to leave them alone? They are not different from other resource extractors. Do you really think ConAgra, Hormel, Monsanto and friends are some guy with a straw hat and nice dog rounding up their herd?

          1. In more recent times, they have lobbied and bribed the gubment to keep their dangerous foods in a top space on the food pyramid.

            Yeah, that George McGovern was a real right-wing traitor. No wonder you mass-tards voted for him.

          2. “Funny how the same people who often want to take welfare away from the poor and disabled then defend those who take the most!”

            Yeah, people on this board are ALWAYS arguing in favor of farm subsidies. you have no fucking clue where you are, do you, shithead?

            “In more recent times, they have lobbied and bribed the gubment to keep their dangerous foods in a top space on the food pyramid…

            Even those it’s the organic nuts who pump millions of dollars into “labelling” and banning all alternatives to their overpriced snake oil.

            “even though science says otherwise.”

            No, Science has roundly and conclusively come down in favor of genetic modification, no matter how deeply you bury yourself in the propaganda of Natural news, you dumb Luddite Fuck.

            “Do you really think ConAgra, Hormel, Monsanto and friends are some guy with a straw hat and nice dog rounding up their herd?”

            That certainly sums up your fairy tale perception of the multi-billion dollar organic industry.

    5. They can have my cheese steak when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

      1. you forgot greasy fingers.

  7. When did wearing a sign advertizing that THE END IS NEAR become fashionable? In my youth those people were referred to as nut-jobs.

    1. I used to have a t-short that said that on the front. On the back it said, “Here it is!”

  8. “another marcher was wearing a makeshift hat that read: “Koch Brothers Love Stalin.””

    That’s one of the talking points – they did work in Stalin’s Soviet Union c. 1920s and 1930s, and what they saw turned them against Communism. Ergo, they’re basically communists. Or something.

    1. “they” = earlier generation of Kochs.

    2. And Milton Friedman was an avid supporter of Augusto Pinochet, don’t you know?

      The President may or may not be friends with a domestic terrorist? Fake scandal.

      The Koch Brothers did some work in the Soviet Union before the Cold War? They love Stalin!

    3. Yes, and afterwards they became avid anti-communists.

      But the only possible explanation for that must because of a business deal gone sour.
      Not because of anything they witnessed in Stalinist Russia.

    4. So Ayn Rand was also a Stalinist.

    5. Was the commie asshole holding the “Koch Brothers Love Stalin” sign wearing a Che Guevara shirt?

      That would be peak irony right there.

  9. Sounds like May day.’Workers of the world unite’,until you get the bill

  10. A bunch of clueless people believing in a utopia that can’t possible exist and wanting to force this impossibility on everyone.

    1. Well, we’re all in this together. So we better work together. And by work together I mean obey TOP MEN or be killed. Only then can we achieve utopia.

    2. The true believers will be the first people purged in the Communist future.

  11. Someone should have staged a competing march and called it the “climate march for the people”. It would have been a real life People’s Front of Judea versus the Judean People’s Front kind of thing. The world needs more pranksters. It is the only way to deal with these idiots.

    1. That March happened this morning. We call it rush hour.

  12. You have to love the “no fracking” sing at a “climate march”. Clearly the solution to C)2 emissions is to bad drilling for natural gas and use oil imported from the Middle East instead.

    1. John, gaia demands we mortify the flesh with energy-poverty!

      What are you… anti-science?!?

    2. I think is noteworthy that a lot of these people reject every single proven method of generating energy. Oil pollutes the planet. Natural gas pollutes the planet. Coal pollutes the planet. Nuclear pollutes the planet and is too dangerous. Damming rivers hurts the environment. Apparently only wind and solar are acceptable. Never mind that only one country currently manages to generate even half of its energy with wind, and let’s not even talk about solar. Iceland has 100% “renewable energy”, but they have the advantage of being literally built on a volcano, which is a difficult technology to export; most of the other countries with high “renewable energy” records are small countries that use a lot of dams, and the problem is that eventually you run out of large rivers to dam.

      N.b., I do believe that solar, wind, and tidal power will ultimately be the way to go, but I also think it’s foolish to demand we give up cheap energy right now. Nuclear should be the way to go, but it seems like we’re determined to hamstring ourselves.

      1. Wind shreds birds and solar fries them. Geothermal energy causes earthquakes. So they are out too.

      2. Back in the 1990s I did environmental law. Back then the greens loved natural gas. Of course natural gas was thought to exist in limited quantities. Once gas turned out to be cheap and abundant, the greens turned on it.

        The Greens are nothing but a death cult. They don’t love the environment. They hate people.

        1. This. Most of the greenies want to live sans human interaction. Typically they’ve been burned by other humans (parents, significant others), and find that only animals fill that big void in their poor shattered heart.

          I actually empathize with the longing for a Frontier with few people and much nature. It’s just a that I’m not willing to impose my preferences on everybody else.

      3. Iceland has learned that while it is possible to generate all they need from geotherman, it does involve replacing their power plants about once every ten years….

    3. Don’t forget the anti-nuke nuts.

      Their invitations and placed emphasis on representatives from solar energy companies belies their intent.

  13. The chief demand of the marchers is for “climate justice,” which broadly entails redistributing wealth from the countries and industries that have benefited from the consumption of fossil fuels.

    That’s because most of these clowns are just watermelons – green on the outside and red on the inside. “Climate change” is just the latest ploy from the left toward worldwide communism, socialism, or whatever the fuck euphemism they’re using for mass stealing and slavery these days.

  14. If I had been in NY, I would have carried a sign with the famous Mencken quote:
    “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

    1. “almost always only a false face ”

      Hence: Puppetheads.

      1. QED.

  15. I think if you took a poll of the people there and asked them if they believed in the “Capitalism” of Silicon Valley you’d get a 95% plus positive – so framing them as anti-capitalist is the ultimate in propaganda.

    I have to conclude that you folks are purposely ignorant.

    The real story is quite simple. As you know, there are various forms of economics – the Libertarian Way being more unregulated Capitalism as God.

    Liberals, Progressive, Do-Gooders, Environmentalists, Hunters and many others believe that a Better Way, given our population and the excess demands on resources, is to use a framework of planning and regulation and have capitalism be the guiding force within these bounds.

    An example is expressed simply with the old “food regulation” debate. Libertarians would allows restaurants to serve deadly food – with the idea that said eatery will be out of business once the bodies start dropping. Of course, that doesn’t stop a new eatery from killing some people! We liberals prefer statistics – we want to see as few people getting sick and dropping dead from food poison as possible.

    Framing it as other than that is just crazy exaggeration – which is why you can’t get even 100 “Libertarians” to show up for their cause.

    1. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

      1. But if we have rules that prevent people from killing each other, then people will stop killing each other.

        1. Yeah, just like FDA rules and inspections prevent outbreaks of salmonella. Oh, wait…

        2. “But if we have rules that prevent people from killing each other, then people will stop killing each other.”

          Well, isn’t our murder rates on the decline? If so, then you are absolutely correct!

          1. Our murder rate is declining because we finally made murder illegal. You are one stupid commie retard.

      2. Welcome to my life guys…

        I would say the Craig in Mass was an obscene attempt to parody the people of massachusetts, like a guy claiming to be from West Virginia who talks about the benefits of generations of inbreeding, except I swim in a world of people who think like him.

        The commonwealth, despite all the scientists and engineers inventing new things, is really the playground of backward pig-ignorant superstitious know-nothings spewing the most vile bullshit while pining to go back to the middle ages. There are so many of them that any political system based on elections would result in them dominating the government.

        They are the embodiment of an old Heinlein quote:

        Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded ? here and there, now and then ? are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
        This is known as “bad luck.”

        I just wish that savages like Craig would go back into their homes and leave the rest of us in peace. They can obsessively read David Eddings novels and fantasize about marrying the beautiful queen and ruling beneficently over the grateful seething masses while the rest of us could get on with our lives.

        1. You just can’t make shit like An example is expressed simply with the old “food regulation” debate. Libertarians would allows restaurants to serve deadly food up.

          Clearly, restaurants have no reason to care about killing their customers. Serving deadly food is a totally viable business model that restaurants would follow if they didn’t have government there to teach them better.

          Pig ignorant is the perfect description of it.

          1. Our friends got salmonella at a catered event at a church a couple of weeks ago (with a whole group of folks). The irony being that they never had a problem with food poisoning before the state forced the churches to only use catered food for potlucks.

            1. “The irony being that they never had a problem with food poisoning before the state forced the churches to only use catered food for potlucks.”

              The real irony here is that you probably truly believe such stories take precedence over actual STATISTICS involving all 310 million people in the USA.

              That’s ironic…for sure!

              1. “The real irony here is that you probably truly believe such stories take precedence over actual STATISTICS involving all 310 million people in the USA. That’s ironic…for sure!”

                This coming from the dipshit who just argued, with a straight face, that laws are the one and only thing preventing restaurant owners from poisoning and killing all their customers, because it’s a brilliant money-making measure.

                Now THAT is irony. Like, ACTUAL irony, and not the inappropriate manner in which you misused the term because you’re a clueless fucking jerkoff.

        2. ^^^ So THAT explains the Kennedy Clan.

        3. David Eddings

          DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT BELGARION

        4. I particularly like the part about “our population and the excess demands on resources”.
          Did you know we’re running out of, uh, pretty much nothing.

          1. Citation? If seven billion people are, by some magical process, incapable of depleting resources (even truly finite ones like oil), then how come past societies have done so with much smaller numbers?

            1. … dude, when you hastily write shit like this, it totally gives the game away. Few people are stupid enough to actually believe what you just wrote. It screams to the world that I am a sock-puppet purposed to discredit progressivism.

              I would ordinarily stay silent. I can’t though; I hate being taunted by Episiarch for interacting with you; and when you out yourself as a sock like this, it makes Episiarch gloat more when he mocks guys like me; as a favor to those of us who help further your eldritch goals in running the sock, could you please be a little more subtle?

              1. Well that was some substance-free bullshit.

                All I asked for was a citation for the claim that humans are magically incapable of running out of limited resources.

                1. “All I asked for was a citation for the claim that humans are magically incapable of running out of limited resources.”

                  Just as soon as you demonstrate how human beings are rapidly running out of resources that can and are readily and easily reproduced at greater numbers than we could even imagine in the past.

                  Which, I suspect, is the REAL reason so many of you regressive Left zealots are so religiously opposed to GMOs. After all, if science and capitalism can solve food scarcity problems, how can you go on scapegoating them for all the poor in the world?

                  Better to force people to suffer and die than admit everything you believe is a pathetic fucking lie, right, Tony?

            2. Tony|9.22.14 @ 1:26PM|#
              “Citation?”

              You make the claim we’re running out? You make the cite, you slimy POS.

            3. “(even truly finite ones like oil”

              Who told you to stop holding your breath waiting for Peak Oil?

          2. “Did you know we’re running out of, uh, pretty much nothing.”

            Quick Quiz.

            What is the actual producer cost of Oil in the USA per bbl as compared to 30 years ago?

            Break even these days can be over $60 bbl for North American crude.

            In the post World War II era, U.S. oil prices at the wellhead averaged $28.52 per barrel adjusted for inflation to 2010 dollars

            So, we can get oil at OVER TWICE THE PRICE!

            And why doesn’t it seem so bad? Well, because of these things:
            1. Cars get double the mileage and going higher – the result of increased CAFE standards as well as tax credits and economic incentives (higher prices!).

            2. The Great Recession cut down on driving (thrift).

            3. Environmental activism – any oil Joe Green doesn’t use in his Prius is more for you at a better price.

            So, we should all be happy. The oil drillers are getting vastly higher prices for their crude, the air is cleaner, the consumer has a cleaner car, there is less respirator disease and pressure has been taken off an important energy source (nat gas also has a lot to do with relief for oil supplies).

            Oh, BTW, excess demands…does not mean running out. Excess demands can be mitigated by efficiency, which….well, we are doing largely due to the efforts of these same people you love to denigrate. As you probably know, those hippies in CA. often set the nationwide tone for MPG and other efficiency matters.

            1. “As you probably know, those hippies in CA. often set the nationwide tone for MPG and other efficiency matters.”

              Only in the fantasyland that exists between your ears are hybrids and electric cars anything but an inefficient joke. Even your beloved Cali hippies aren’t stupid buy into that bullshit anymore, and they;re the biggest fuckign idiots on the planet.

        5. “The commonwealth, despite all the scientists and engineers inventing new things, is really the playground of backward pig-ignorant superstitious know-nothings spewing the most vile bullshit while pining to go back to the middle ages”

          That’s funny! I’m sure if you get very sick and diseased, you will head down to Alabama to have some real smart doctors work on you using home remedies they came up with in their plantation houses!

          These folks are so stupid…that they created institutions, medicines, processes and hospitals that are know all around the world.

          If you truly live in the Bay State, my suggestion is to follow Scott Brown to NH and suck his cock. It truly satisfies.

          1. Go back to hiding under your bed from a maration bombing, moron.

          2. “That’s funny! I’m sure if you get very sick and diseased, you will head down to Alabama to have some real smart doctors work on you using home remedies they came up with in their plantation houses!”

            This is rich coming from you, asshole, considering you’re on the record as having claimed that shitty Massachusetts hospitals that leave people to rot in emergency rooms with severe conditions for upwards of 8 hours before pushing them back out onto the streets without treatment are the “best in the country”.

            “These folks are so stupid…that they created institutions, medicines, processes and hospitals that are know all around the world.”

            Please, remind me, where are all these world-renowned hospitals and medical instutions that were created and run by hippies? You talk an awful lot about how great they are, but can’t seem to actually name any.

            You’re the type of fuckwit who believes in homeopathy, aincha?

    2. Libertarians would allows restaurants to serve deadly food – with the idea that said eatery will be out of business once the bodies start dropping.

      Um, yeah. Because libertarians think murder is OK.

      1. That rambling pile of incoherent idiocy from craiginmass? That is what leftists really believe.

    3. In other words, mouthing paeans in favor of capitalism while sustaining policies directly in contrivance of it is capitalistic.

      You really nailed the progressive teamspeak, craig.

      1. How much you wanna bet he wrote that on his iPhone?

    4. C+ – honestly, that was pretty good

    5. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you’ve never read any of Hayek’s arguments concerning central planning. And that you’re far too stupid to realize the poverty that exist in existing planned economies compared to the more free market nations.

      1. I’m gonna assume you actively refuse to read anyone but Hayek and a couple other free market philosophers.

        If you’re going to lump all so-called planned economies in with authoritarian communism, then you don’t get to claim that the US or any other country that has a welfare state is an example of free-market success. You get Somalia.

        1. Tony|9.22.14 @ 1:29PM|#
          …”Somalia.”…

          Shitstain, you left off “Koch Bros(tm)”, “ROADZ!” and “social contract!”.
          Not to mention “Serve the people, comrade!”

          1. Libya’s transitioned from a centrally planned government to a, uh, freer form. You can have that too.

            1. Gee, who changed it? Was it booooooosh?

        2. “If you’re going to lump all so-called planned economies in with authoritarian communism, then you don’t get to claim that the US or any other country that has a welfare state is an example of free-market success. You get Somalia.”

          Serious observation here; you guys ever notice that Leftists always use failed Socialist and post Soviet states as examples of the so called failures of liberty. They really, seriously are that fucking stupid.

        3. “I’m gonna assume you actively refuse to read anyone but Hayek and a couple other free market philosophers.”

          And you’re a braindead fucking pathological liar who doesn’t “read” anyone so much as he creates fantasy scenarios in his head and then screams about anyone who doesn’t agree is riding unicorns, or whatever bullshit you spew.

          No assumption necessary.

    6. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 10:13AM|#
      …”I have to conclude that you folks are purposely ignorant”…

      Asshole just posted that!

      1. Tony, Head-in-Ass and JackAce all sound identical and tend to always show up in the same spot in a span of minutes, one-after-another.

    7. Having no desire to engage your idiocy in debate, was just wondering how you got the handle Craiginm?

      You Ass.

    8. …a Better Way, given our population and the excess demands on resources, is to use a framework of planning and regulation and have capitalism be the guiding force within these bounds.

      “Using capitalism within a framework of planning” is like buying a truffle-hunting dog because you like truffles, but then locking the dog in your house because you think that way you can get all the truffles without ever having to leave home.

    9. I suppose you’d prefer we were all gamboling on the plains?

    10. many others believe that a Better Way

      Notice the capitalization. This is a cult, a phony religion. The modern day crusaders of the left are banishing all blasphemy and paganism, replacing it all with “right thought.”

      Of course, that doesn’t stop a new eatery from killing some people!

      Of course! It’s not like there are laws against killing people, nor insanely strong market pressures to not kill your consumers. It’s the health department that keeps us alive when we go out to eat. See, government is God, and God would smite anybody who would poison people with food. What’s that, you say? People still die and get sick from inspected food? Say it ain’t so! Government God must be punishing those wreckers for not believing in it!

      We liberals prefer statistics

      Which route should I go on this one? Laughing out loud at the inanity of that statement, or the whole ‘lies, damn lies, and statistics’ route?

    11. We liberals prefer statistics – we want to see as few people getting sick and dropping dead from food poison as possible.

      ZERO POIZENINGZ TOLERANCE! Spare no expense (to other people, of course). No cost is too high. After all, if it saves just one life, spending other people’s money on diminishing returns, will have been worth it.

      Why don’t fucking idiots, such as yourself Craig, realize that libertarians want the same outcomes you do? The difference being our way accomplishes the same thing with NO public funding and NO economy killing regulation.

      Your failure to understand this, pretty much makes you a fuking moron.

      1. Because craig wants cake. Lots of it.

    12. No sweetie, it doesn’t mean we are ignorant, it means they are hypocrites. When Liberals simultaneously demand more laws and less enforcement, it means they are hypocrites (and morons). Two weeks ago our friends got salmonella at a catered event in California. Your laws didn’t save anyone, they just make you feel superior and allow you to be pushed around by a ruler who uses your stupidity to relegate you to the position of slave. I’m ok with you choosing to enslave yourself for your pretend causes, I’m not ok with your attempt to enslave me with your hypocritical stupidity.

    13. Well, thanks for summing up liberal misconceptions and misrepresentations so succinctly anyway.

    14. Liability + liability insurance.

      Let the insurers decide which restaurants aren’t worth the cost of insuring, and set liability insurance rates accordingly.

    15. Awwww the strawmen they burn so nicely.

    16. Silicon Valley is the villain du jour. If you polled the marchers, it’d be more like a 40% approval rating.

      There. My made-up number disproves your made-up number.

    17. “I think if you took a poll of the people there and asked them if they believed in the “Capitalism” of Silicon Valley you’d get a 95% plus positive – so framing them as anti-capitalist is the ultimate in propaganda.”

      I think you give your ideological comrades a lot more credit than they deserve. Too bad you’re not as lenient with those you disagree with.

    18. I think if you took a poll of the people there and asked them if they believed in the “Capitalism” of Silicon Valley you’d get a 95% plus positive<<br /
      Which Silicon Valley?

      The one with near 100% rates of gasoline-burning car commutes on freeways, with hours of attendant gridlock on commutes that often exceed 50 miles?

      The one with a massive suburban footprint, including big-box stores and plentiful parking?

      The one that depends on funding from Wall Street banks to grow?

      The one that produces technology products with toxic byproducts, distributed through a fossil-fuel-burning supply chain from low-wage factories in Asia?

      The one that passed laws to reduce housing density and limit the heights of buildings to encourage urban sprawl?

      The one that depends on three different regional airports and has the highest rate of per-capita long-haul flights in the world?

      The one that had its largest employers ban telecommuting and mandate physical commutes by car?

      The one that claims to hate all of these things even as it does them more than just about any other region of the United States?

    19. Head-in-Ass: They’re not anti-capitalist! They just want to abolish that system, confiscate all your property and subjugate you to a totalitarian socialist utopia!

      “We liberals prefer statistics”

      Sure; ones you pull directly out of your ass.

  16. So, how much useful stuff could have been accomplished if they had dedicated that time to something other than a political protest? Hell, just having 300,000 people turn generator cranks for two hours would have been something.

    1. Awurrnusss!

  17. I have to conclude that you folks are purposely ignorant.

    Coming from you, that’s quite something.

  18. Speaking of fools and their money-

    Yesterday, I saw a commercial for some sort of “Save teh ERF!” group. It started out with a panicky claim about disappearing species; life forms are vanishing, it seems, at some prodigious rate and soon biodiversity will be a thing of the past, and we’ll all die.

    But- you can help. YOU can prevent this biological cataclysm. How? By SENDING MONEY. Don’t wait another moment. THE PLANET IS DYING!

    Sounds like a scam, to me; but what do I know?

    1. That is the whole greenie movement in a nutshell, climate change and all.

      A con.

  19. Today, Steven McIntyre published yet another of the series of articles that symbolically are slowly drawing out Michael Mann (and the rest of the ‘Hockey Stick Team’) intestines and roasting them over a fire in front of his agonized eyes.

    Black Tuesday of Climate Science

    In today’s article, he shows that hiding the decline (the practice of hiding the decline of the apparent temperature as recorded in tree rings in comparison to the instrumental temperatures they were supposed to indicate by throwing out the tree ring dericed calculated temperatures after 1960 and replacing it with actual instrumental temperatures) was

    1) carried out with Michael Mann’s knowledge and concurrance (he claims in his court filings to not have been involved)

    2) intended to deceive other scientists and not as a simplified graph to tell as story to the general public.

    If these people weren’t such scumbags who have convinced governments to implement policies that will impoverish a few billion people and shorten the lives of millions of them, I might actually feel pity watching them slowly writhe.

    1. Can you name a single expert from outside the field of climate science without a political axe to grind who has seriously looked at the science relating to AGW and not come away unconvinced? I can’t.

      Whenever their work is subjected to outside analysis, it falls on its ass. The thing that people who are intent on giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt (like Ron Bailey) seem to forget is that the smartest people don’t go into climatology as a field and climatology requires a tremendous amount of knowledge in fields like statistics and computer coding. Yet, whenever a specialist from one of the outside fields relevant to the work evaluates it, they always find it wanting. The climategate emails revealed Mann and his crew to be utterly incompetent coders and statisticians. Yet, we are still supposed to trust their work because they are the “experts in the subject”.

      1. We are supposed to trust them because they are funded by wonderful government, while their critics are funded by icky corporations.

        Government can be trusted because it obtains all its resources by force, and does a shitty job at anything it does. But it doesn’t have an icky profit motive.

        Corporations are bad because they provide goods, services and jobs for society, while also stealing away icky profits.

        Coercion equals good. Voluntary transactions equals bad.

        1. Dead on

      2. One of the things I am trying to teach my kids is not to put their thumb on the scale on matters.

        Because that’s what happened in climate science. All the misfeasance started with guys thinking I’ll fudge just a little bit, so I advance the cause. Each person who put their thumb on the scale thought it was OK, because the narrative was obviously correct – often because everyone else was saying the narrative was correct.

        Naturally, this meant that all the evidence falsifying the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming wasn’t properly being assessed by the leaders of the various scientific institutions that form the center of mass of climate science. Sure there were occasional outliers, guys who had the guts and the wisdom to point out the shortfalls and the contradictory evidence. But they could be dismissed as cranks.

        And now there are very few scientists with stature who don’t have unclean hands, who weren’t guilty of fudging, who couldn’t switch to arguments based on analyzing the data with integrity without exposing their past misdeeds.

        In effect to keep the ship off the rocks, they must admit they made a navigational error and accept public humiliation, and because they can’t bear to be humiliated they are keeping a course that will put them on the rocks.

        1. Yes. The problem with a small lie is not so much the lie itself but the resulting lies necessary to cover it up. You are right, once they fudged a little bit and it got them rewarded with money and status, they were committed. For any of them to admit that the theory was wrong or that it is somewhat right but is unlikely to produce catastrophic results would mean the effective end of their careers.

          Their entire field has been bet on this theory being true. If it is not true, then it will go back to being a complete backwater about as important as the guys who study cave molds. Yet, Ron Baily claims to still believe them because he is acutely aware of the possibility of confirmation bias.

          1. Actually, Ron’s conclusions are quite defensible. You see, there are several different tiers of “humans impacting the climate” that the cultists conflate in their attempts to paint themselves as being mainstream:

            1) No Anthropogenic Global Warming Whatsoever – This group is basically saying that the climate is so dominated by natural processes and that human impact is so tiny as to be negligible, like throwing a post it note on a 65 ton steel coil.

            2) No Global Warming – Anthropogenic Warming Offset by Natural Cooling: This group says that the Earth would be cooling, except that CO2 production is producing enough warming to offset it.

            3) Global Warming w/ Anthropogenic Component – This group says that the Earth *is* warming, and that the greenhouse effect due to human emitted CO2 is partially but not entirely responsible.

            4) Anthropogenic Global Warming – This group says that the Earth is warming *primarily* due to human emissions, and that the natural variations in climate are a minor component of the warming.

            1. 5) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming – This group says that human emissions are not only the primary source of global warming, that the positive feedback loops in the climate system ensure that the Earth is going to warm so rapidly as to be catastrophic to life. This group has some sub-tiers as well based on the degree of catastrophe, ranging from Sagans runaway greenhouse effect that makes the Earth like Venus, to No venus but humanity goes extinct, to a large portion of humans dying due to ecological collapse.

              The CAGWers are the ones getting the big bucks, but observations have entirely falsified their theories. They try to conflate their theories with the constellations of theories claiming a detectable anthropogenic component, and to date have been able to get away with it to a large degree.

              Ron has claimed that he believes that human emissions are noticeably warming the climate, meaning that tiers 2,3, or 4 could be right. I argue that Tier 4 has also been falsified by observation, but tiers 2 or 3 have not been.

              1. I don’t see how the confirmation bias problem doesn’t apply equally to any of choices one through five. The heart of the issue is does human driven increases in C02 levels cause the planet to warm in any significant way. If the answer to that is “no” then the entire field falls into obscurity.

                1. I don’t see how the confirmation bias problem doesn’t apply equally to any of choices one through five.

                  I think you are quite right; the climate system is so poorly understood that firm predictions are impossible.

                  Nobody knows why some years you get more clouds than others. Some interesting guesses (Svedmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis, if confirmed, would really tickle my fancy) but nothing that has been tested and found to have predictive utility.

                  The predictions that people do make are, by necessity, from the sort of vague theories that Feynman warned were “no good”, since you can always come up with an excuse to explain the observations that were made yesterday that you failed to predict last week.

      3. Yes clearly we must only trust non-experts, as you have defined the experts as people who are biased by definition.

        In which other fields is this the case? And what monumental level of rhetoric will it take for you to understand the feedback loop of ignorance you’ve placed yourself in?

        1. Fuck off, Shithead.

        2. Yes, because clearly saying that trusting experts at face value without any sort of review can only be counteracted through distrust of anybody who claims expertise on a subject.

          Isn’t it possible to just simply avoid the ad hominem (both positive and negative) and hold a view that skeptical review shouldn’t be demonized, no matter the subject?

          1. There’s skeptical (such as what defines the process known as science) and then there’s being willfully ignorant. John is perfectly capable of reading and figuring out where current science is. But he, and nearly everyone here, has come to this topic with an agenda and an opinion formed. You aren’t practicing skepticism but the opposite.

            1. Tony|9.22.14 @ 1:19PM|#
              …”But he, and nearly everyone here, has come to this topic with an agenda and an opinion formed. You aren’t practicing skepticism but the opposite.”

              17 years and counting; zero temp change, dipshit. Why do you ignore the data?

              1. This talking point is so zombified if you are still repeating it then you are simply proving my point: you are being willfully ignorant on this subject about which you are spewing opinions.

                1. It probably should be called climate not change. Or maybe climate steady state.

                2. “This talking point is so zombified if you are still repeating it then you are simply proving my point”

                  Pointing out flaws and holes in Tony’s idiotic, faith-based beliefs just prove him MORE right!

            2. “There’s skeptical (such as what defines the process known as science”

              Tony, your idea of “skepticism” is reading something in the Natural News comment section, parroting it endlessly, and then accusing everyone who can readily debunk your bullshit of riding on unicorns purchased for them by the Lizard People Corporation.

              Fuck off and die.

        3. None of those who claimed to be experts on the subject are capable of proving that they are such to begin with.

          There is no such thing as an expert in any subject where the veracity of the claim being made by said alleged expert cannot be uneqivocally quantified as absolutely 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.

          1. Which is exactly the same thing as saying you are smarter than the near-universal composition of the world’s climate scientists. Perhaps you could offer a credential, at least?

            1. He’s not being paid a six figure salary that would quickly disappear if the climate was found to not be changing.

              1. “He’s not being paid a six figure salary that would quickly disappear if the climate was found to not be changing.”

                Are you talking about the editors of Reason, the Cato institute hacks or the thousands of others on the Koch propaganda payrolls?

                1. The DCF emotes that lost 200 kids.

                2. “Are you talking about the editors of Reason, the Cato institute hacks or the thousands of others on the Koch propaganda payrolls?”

                  Seeing as how they don’t directly financially benefit from carbon credit pyramid schemes, government grants for endless and fruitless carbon “studies” and big money cronyism via companies like Solyndra, I’m gonna go on a limb and say, “No”.

            2. Piltdown Man, Ptolemy, and Newton would like to have a word.

        4. Yes clearly we must only trust non-experts, as you have defined the experts as people who are biased by definition.

          In which other fields is this the case?

          All of them. I trust financially biased non-experts every day.

          I tend to trust them because I happen to be a financially biased non-expert myself.

          Also, the people that I interact with who claim to be non-financially biased experts tend to be either zealots, liars or both.

      4. “The climategate emails revealed Mann and his crew to be utterly incompetent coders and statisticians. Yet, we are still supposed to trust their work because they are the “experts in the subject”.”

        But I’ve been assured that Climate Gate is a huge hoax because secret comunnique in which scientists are instructed to knowingly misrepresent their data and findings to reflect an unsupported pre-supposition are commonplace in the scientific community!

  20. “Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey wandered among the throngs prior to the March’s kick off where it was apparent that every progressive cause can and does find a home in the climate change movement.”

    My condolences to Mr. Bailey.

  21. I’d love to show up to one of these things with a sign that reads the following:

    SAVE THE PLANET!

    SMASH CAPITALISM!

    HOLOMODOR NOW!!!

    1. HOLOMODOR NOW!!!

      Is this where millions of orcs died in a famine created by the policies of Sauron?

  22. Seriously, one of the anti-fracking groups is “cats kill citizens” .org?

    My kitty would beg to differ. Never mind, no she wouldn’t 😉

  23. The March’s slogan was “To Change Everything, We Need Everyone.”

    Translation: Dissenters and refuseniks must be whipped into compliance with our agenda.

  24. So we’re losing. The question is, do we move straight to the death camp stage, or do we become Venezuela first?

    1. I am thinking half way to Venezuela and then death camps. We are too rich to turn into Venezuela and these guys are too committed not to start killing people before too much longer.

      1. Maybe we’ll become Norway, become steadily poorer for 20-30 years, and then start sending the wreckers to the death camps. I think that sounds the most artistically satisfying, you know?

        1. Yes. Then after a few years and a few million deaths, the camps will be closed and some sanity will return and those responsible will sigh and write opeds about how the whole thing was such a noble experiment that just got a little out of hand because the evil racist right make things so hard.

          1. John, you optimist! I question who is going to counterbalance the international tendencies of a tyrannical US? China? Russia? The EU? They seem powerless today if the fedgov wants to play war in the sandbox.

            At least when Germany and the soviets went all death camp on their citizens, there was a world power devoted to relative liberty (us) to prevent their metastasis.

            1. All things must pass. Even the old USSR finally fell apart. Even Pot’s Cambodia fell apart. None of these things last forever. If nothing else, the leftists quickly turn on each other and kill themselves off.

              1. True, but I think that this round of collapse and tyranny will mirror the fall of Rome (in a much accelerated fashion) closer than the USSR.

    2. “he question is, do we move straight to the death camp stage”

      We make kochs the commanders and put all you libertarians hacks in them. In this case, you’ll smile and do whatever they say with no trouble.

      1. Your personal fantasies are none of our business.

        1. At least the totalitarian shithead is honest about his desire to murder and oppress everyone who dares think differently than he does. Dunno if that’s a good thing or bad thing.

  25. All the misfeasance started with guys thinking I’ll fudge just a little bit, so I advance the cause.

    This is pretty much the inescapable outcome, when you are working backward from your conclusion.

  26. 300 000, huh.

    That’s a lot of people living in insecure, irrational fear.

    Also. This thread is no fun. Not enough hysterical trolls posing as protectors of science.

    1. They fucking love science Rufus. Never forget that. They just fucking love science.

      1. Except when science says that GMOs are safe for human consumption. Then science is an evil plot by Monsanto.

    2. I feel like we missed an excellent opportunity, with all of them in one place at one time, to round up and lead these simpletons to their own little ecosystem and leave them there.

      Just sprinkle a trail of organic flax seeds and gubmint research grants to some unlucky island. Then blow up the bridges and enforce the blockade.

      Have nice and annoying life.

  27. I seem to recall some developing world governments (e.g. Kenya) paying some heed to adaptation to climate change, versus massively expensive efforts to stem it.
    Anyone care to offer their libertarian opinion on whether it makes sense for the US government to engage these efforts ?

    1. If you want to be specific, you might get an answer.
      What you posted there sounds suspiciously like a loaded question.

      1. Apologies for the lazy comment.
        I wasn’t trying to be leading, but in hindsight it could clearly be seen that way.

        Try as I might, I can’t find the interview that prompted the question.
        My quite fallible memory has it as a Kenyan official discussing flood control measures.

        (Slinks back to lurking.)

    2. The Republicans and Democrats can come together and knock out two birds with one stone. Build a 100′ wall along the entire border of the US. Democrats keep out the evil climate change water. Republicans keep out the evil illegal immigrants.

      It’s a win-win for statism!

  28. Hobby protesters who have nothing to really complain about. Wish they would take up something less annoying, like playing the bagpipes.

    1. Exactly. WTF do GMOs have to do with climate change? This was a grab bag of Every type of left-enviro-freak bringing their pet issues to the table. it was not a mainstream crowd representing mainstream America, it was the usual coalition of progressive-left professional activists.

      1. ” it was not a mainstream crowd representing mainstream America”

        Are you saying it was not like….the sons of slaveholders from the south? Or that Clive Bundy and Idaho Freemen were not represented?

        Who are these mainstream Americans? Where are they?

        1. “Who are these mainstream Americans? Where are they?”

          I think he’s just referring to the majority of Americans who don’t hate and fear science because some idiot on the web told them that the Lizard People Corporation was raping the planet and putting evil chemicals into their bodies. In other words, people a helluva lot smarter and more productive than you.

    2. Wish they would take up something less annoying,

      Or scratching their nails on chalkboards.

  29. Hey anti-fracking lady. Cats kill citizens dot org?

    1. Cats kill citizens dot org?

      That initially made me laugh too. Catskills is a region.

  30. “Fracking aggravated a lot of the demonstrators. All kinds of artful placards alluded to the other f-word as a way of indicating their displeasure. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water. ”

    Well, frack my taint!

    1. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water.

      As if any of them drink anything except bottled water anyway.

  31. C’mon. This is like kicking a bunch of puppies holding silly signs.

  32. I am somewhat heartened by the fact that a large slice of the march seems to bhave been composed of various fringe lunatics pursuing agendas that directly work at cross purposes to preventing climate change.

    i.e. the anti-GMOers, the anti-nuclear types, the anti-fracking types

    It seems that the march wasn’t REALLY any sort of informed popular protest against climate change, but rather a large collection of the usual suspects, cranks with their pet issues that aren’t really related to the issue at hand, which seems to happen at every lefty protest event. I’m surprised there weren’t any “Free Mumia” signs.

    1. “I’m surprised there weren’t any “Free Mumia” signs.”

      There probably were, they just weren’t on any video you happened to see.

      1. Free Mumia with every $100 purchase?

  33. The title should have been The Menagerie of Idiocy. What’s painfully obvious is that all of these people have such low self-worth that they see any of these movements as a path to virtue (Richard Lindzen pointed that out in a interview I recently watched). Sad. We have the most and we complain the most. I guess having so much wealth makes people bored to the point that they need to rebel against it…or something. Maybe they should take up finger painting.

    1. Saint Stupid’s Day, with commentary by craig!

  34. Good to see so many of the deniers here are annoyed at the march…it must have been successful.

    1. Sure, if the goal was to make the rest of the world aware of their ignorance…completely successful.

    2. Your political solutions are powered by libertarian outrage?

      Impressive, but it is a limited resource, there being so few of us.

    3. And commentary by Jack, too!
      All stupids, all the time!

    4. Annoyed? Entertained. This is far more entertaining than half the garbage on cable tv these days. Even Obama’s former Energy Czar states the science is not settled. Is this guy a “denier” too? I think real climatologists are even becoming annoyed with all these idiots running around stating “the science is settled”. Here is the article
      http://online.wsj.com/articles…..1411143565

    5. Good to see so many of the scaremongers haven’t let the fact that their march was populated almost exclusively by the biggest anti-science nutcases on the planet deter them from beating their chests about disproven “Party of Science” bullshit.

  35. ……………………………..END CAPITALISM!!!

    BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL NIRVANA LIKE CHINA AND NORTH KOREA!!

  36. None of these people will actually agree to any sort of meaningful measures to reduce CO2 admissions. Like, ever.

    Let’s say the government erect more parking meters to discourage driving. Oops, can’t have that. Keeping the temperature below 78 degrees and turning off air conditioning for 2,3 hours, and unplugging appliances? Yeah, I wanna be see how many Californians did that in the last 2 weeks.

    When energy cost skyrocket in CA thanks to that global warming bill, people here will sing a different tune. I heard Australia’s global warming law went down in flames.

  37. “We must have a better capitalism; better than the malignant corporate system we have now.”

    Can’t say I disagree.

    1. There’s certainly an argument for that, but seeing how the protesters at events like this keep voting for Statist solutions that effectively entrench cronyncapitalism, I find it hard to take their anti-corporatism seriously.

  38. Sadly, Joel Hodgson of MST3K fame was one of these people. He proudly posted about it to his Facebook page….

    1. He was never as good as when he was just a filler hack on channel 23.

  39. RE: “the March did attract between 300,000 and 400,000 participants, making it by far the largest climate change mobilization in history.”

    That’s about 1/3 as many people as view Internet pornography in NYC/day.

  40. So what is Rent-A-Mob’s next gig?

  41. I’m reminded of this quote from the beginning of one chapter in “Lucifer’s Hammer”

    “One must point out, however, that many who now deplore the oppression, injustice and intrinsic ugliness of life in a technically advanced and congested society will decide that things were better when they were worse; and they will discover that to do without the functions proper to the great systems – without telephone, electric lights, cars, letters or telegrams – is all very well for a week or so, but that is not amusing as a way of life.”

    Roberto Vacca–The Coming Dark Age

  42. “and leading environmentalists including (…) Vandana Shiva”

    Gee, you’ve got an awful lot of anti-science nutjobs and rhetoric in your “pro-science” demonstration.

  43. “It should be acknowledged that the vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

    Why should we acknowledge a complete fucking lie? If we were to switch to pure agriculture, you’d need to more than quadruple availible farming acreage to make up for all the extra crops that have to be grown to account for all the proteins, calories and nutrients people aren’t getting by just eating meat. You’re claiming that being more inefficient will somehow bring about better efficiency.

    These same fucking lying vegan dipshits making these claims are the same exact ones who turn around and tell us that we’re raping the world by allowing South Americans to bulldoze rainforest lands for more farm acreage. So which is it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.