Climate Change

Peoples Climate Movement March for Jobs, Justice and the Climate

Social justice activists hijack the problem of man-made climate change.

|

PeoplesClimateMarchDC

Tomorrow around 100,000 Americans are expected to join the Peoples Climate March, which plans to stream from the Capitol up Pennsylvania Avenue while demanding jobs, justice, and—oh, yes—action on climate change. The plan is to "literally" surround the White House, then stage a 100-second sit-in, symbolizing the first 100 days of Donald Trump's administration. (Perhaps President Trump will hear the protests tomorrow afternoon, but he plans to hold a rally in Pennsylvania that evening.) It's another example of social justice movements hijacking the problem of climate change and using it as a pretext for attacking our system of market-tested betterment and innovation.

Naomi Klein made this agenda explicit in her 2014 book This Changes Everything, which asserted that climate science has given progressives "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever. Canonical Marxism predicted that capitalism would collapse under the weight of its class "contradictions," in which the bourgeoisie profit from the proletariat's labor until we reach a social breaking point. In Klein's update, capitalism will collapse because the pollution produced by heedless overconsumption will build to an ecological breaking point. "Only mass social movements can save us now," she declared.

Tomorrow's march is a reprise of a 2014 Peoples Climate March in New York City, in which some 400,000 people participated. As in 2014, progressive economic and social policies are at the top of the marchers' agenda. The demonstrators are demanding emissions cuts deep enough to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial global average temperature. (By at least one calculation, that would mean that global carbon dioxide emissions would have to peak by 2020 and fall to zero by 2050.) But they also want "an equitable and sustainable New Energy and Economic Future." Among other things, this entails a $15 per hour minimum wage, the right to form unions, and investments targeted to give low-income Americans and people of color access to good jobs. Paul Getsos, national coordinator for the Peoples Climate Movement, also demands that the White House "immediately stop attacks on communities of color and immigrant, Muslim, indigenous and LGBTQIA communities." How this helps solve climate change is not at all clear.

The pre-march line-up confirms the organizers' social justice aspirations. Heading off the parade are the "protectors of justice," which includes native youth and youth of color, the indigenous women's delegation, and Black Lives Matter activists, among others. Next up are the "creators of sanctuary," which includes immigrants, LGBTQI, women, Latinos, Waterkeepers, and food sovereignty and land rights marchers. Third in line stand the "builders of democracy," who are representatives from labor, government workers, voting rights, and democracy organizations. The fourth contingent is the "guardians of the future," who speak for kids, parents, elders, youth, students, and peace activists. Fifth come the "defenders of the truth," representing scientists, educators, technologists, and the health community; sixth are the "keepers of faith," consisting of religious groups. The "reshapers of power" are seventh: anti-corporate, anti-nuclear, anti­–fossil fuel, and pro–renewable energy activists, plus bicyclists and other transportation advocates.

The final place in the lineup is called "many struggles, one home." It's reserved for environmentalists, climate activists, the business community, and everyone else.

PeoplesClimateMarchLineup
Peoples Climate March

The Peoples Climate March will alienate tens of millions of Americans who accept that man-made climate change poses significant risks but do not agree that the only solution is to try to transform the global economy into a post-capitalist utopia. Rather helping solve the problem, the march will help ensure that the issue remains politically divisive and intractable.

Advertisement

NEXT: Australian Police Admit Illegally Snooping on Journalist

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. So this is what Americans do with their free time now?

    1. So this is what Americans Progressives do with their free time now?

      1. They obviously have too much free time.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do,.,.,.,.,… http://www.careerstoday100.com

    2. When you’re unemployed, you have plenty of free time.
      When you work for the public sector, what you do isn’t important anyway.

  2. I am sure all these people are going to walk to downtown DC, and not use any fossil fuels to do so. I also hope they get rid of all plastic posessions, such as their iPhone cases, to help the climate.

    1. like how if all the progs that flew places for the “womens march”, which if they are honest was a “planned parenthood march…. if they donated all the money they spent to march demand OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, then there would be no need for the government to fund planned parenthood.

      But no, it’s not about the government funding PP, it’s about punishing your enemies and make they pay for something you know they don’t support

    2. Actually, what they should do is buy as much plastic as they can and never throw it away.

      A fun thing to tell recycling obsessed greenies is that throwing plastic in a landfill is a good thing if you are worried about CO2 emissions. Since plastic lasts for so long, it’s a pretty effective method of carbon sequestration.

  3. The Peoples Climate March will alienate tens of millions of Americans who accept that man-made climate change poses significant risks but do not agree that the only solution is to try to transform the global economy into a post-capitalist utopia.

    No it won’t.

    Why do you think we call them dupes?

    1. The goal is to transform the global economy into a post-capitalist utopia–run by progressives of course. Global warming is the latest bogeyman used to scare people into letting the proggies pull it off.

  4. It’s supposed to be 92 and muggy as shit in DC tomorrow. I hope these folks enjoy their forcible reminder that air conditioning and cold beverages are awesome.

    1. I am tempted to drive by and blast some G. Love and Special Sauce out of my air conditioned car.

      1. That seems like more trouble than it’s worth, unless you were going to be in the area anyway.

      2. You will probably get physically assaulted for simply driving a car-these people want to abolish privately-owned vehicles, especially fossil fuel powered ones.

      3. Drive by with a car full of cold drinks for sale.

        1. …at a 1000% markup.

  5. It must be so hard to be a Leftist. You gotta categorize yourself and remember which oppressed group you belong to all the time.

  6. Best part about my local version of this march (Denver) is that there will likely be 7 inches of snow on the ground come tomorrow.

    1. They’ve upped the prediction to 7? Last I heard it was supposed to be 2-4.

      Still though, the sight of progressive retards marching for climate change while snowing will be pretty funny. Almost as funny as that one year the UN held its annual climate change confab in Copenhagen during a bitterly cold winter.

      1. CA: I was there – nearly froze off my … well, you get the idea.

      2. According to them:

        If its unusually cold and snowy even in the winter-it must be climate change
        If its unusually warm even in the spring or summer-it must be climate change
        If its a nice day when they are in a bad mood-it must be climate change

        1. If its a nice day when they are in a bad mood-it must be climate change

          And they’re always in a bad mood. Being perpetually outraged and aggrieved will do that to you.

          1. Its always “that time of the month” for them

  7. ‘hijacking the problem of climate change ‘ – ??? Sorry, Ronny, can you explain that problem to me once again?

    1. Easy, we need to find a way to plunge us back into a mini ice age like the one we’re currently coming out of. That way lots of people will die and that will save Mother Gaia. Duh!

      These people would agree with Agent Smith from The Matrix, in that Humanity is a virus that must be purged. Not them, you understand, just the people who disagree with them.

      1. These people would agree with Agent Smith from The Matrix, in that Humanity is a virus that must be purged.

        If I’m the virus, I’m going to vigorously disagree with Agent Smith. What the fuck is wrong with people?

        1. I honestly don’t know. The whole concept of a population bomb was disproven ages ago but they still quote it like it’s the bible. Go figure. This whole crowd wouldn’t know science if it punched them in the throat.

      2. I am the egg man
        They are the egg men
        I am the virus
        Goo goo g’joob

    2. Oh, come on. Do you really think changing climate (whatever the cause) never causes any problems for anyone?

      Being sure that there is definitely no problem and nothing to see here is at least as dumb as assuming that the worst predictions are sure to come true and we are all doomed.

      1. We’ve been here for .004% of Earth’s history. Define the problem.

        1. The problem is that people fear what they don’t understand, and factually speaking no one really ‘understands’ the climate. That leaves a whole lot of wiggle room for intellectually dishonest people to make a name, and a fortune, for themselves. If you want to be a superstar in science, you write a doomsday paper. It doesn’t matter that you’re wrong, because some political group will latch onto it for their own purposes.

          1. Paging Elmer Gantry…

        2. We’ve been here for .004% of Earth’s history.

          Not sure how that’s relevant.

          I’m not saying it’s an existential threat to humanity. Just that changing climate does cause difficulties that people have to adjust to. Weather patterns change, sea levels change, that causes problems. Problems that I am confident people can deal with just fine. But problems nonetheless.
          It probably also has benefits, which alarmists like to ignore.

          1. You don’t see how us being here for an incredibly small percentage of the planet’s history (and keeping records for an even dramatically smaller percentage of history) is RELEVANT to a discussion of “unprecedented” global warming?

            Really?

      2. Ok, let me be more precise. In order to make the “social cost of carbon” big enough to worry about, the US gov had to go out 350 until sea level rise was enough to flood cites and S. florida so the cost was big enough. But given 350 years we could hire a hand full of people to build sea walls and be all safe. There is a big difference between “a problem” and “we are all gonna die”.

  8. Well, at least it’s nice that they’ve admitted that they don’t really give a shit about the environment. It’s all just an excuse to ‘destroy’ capitalism. It’s not like we haven’t known that for a while, but hey there’s value in intellectual honesty right?

    1. they really are fucking idiots. Capitalism allows us to do more with less. Because of advances in farming, we need less farmland to grow our food. There are more trees in America now then there were 100 or 200 years ago, because we don’t need all that land just to eat.

      Really whenever someone says they are anti-capitalist, all I hear is “I’m a fucking idiot”

  9. Since you thousands of marchers care about the environment and socialism so much, then we could reduce your carbon footprint much more by killing you, rather than giving you jobs.

    #needsofthemany

    1. I was looking at the map so I could find the locations of snipers.

  10. Paul Getsos, national coordinator for the Peoples Climate Movement, also demands that the White House “immediately stop attacks on communities of color and immigrant, Muslim, indigenous and LGBTQIA communities.” How this helps solve climate change is not at all clear.

    This is one of the reasons these “progressive” marches are so ineffective. They always end up being a giant grab-bag of everything on the Socialist wish list.

    1. How this helps solve climate change is not at all clear.

      That this is actually happening is not very clear either.

      1. They have specifically defined the ‘problem’ as Climate Change because it conflates two ideas as the same thing.

        On one hand, the climate does actually change. It’s doing it right now, in fact. Most people, if you said it in these simple terms, say ‘yeah, exactly’!

        On the other hand, there’s AGW which is now just ‘Climate Change’ and it’s the theory that mankind is primarily response for the climate changing. It’s very possible mankind has some effect, most people would agree on that point, but mankind driving the planet to destruction through some magical CO2 death spiral is not supported scientifically.

        This is how they turn the argument on it’s ear. By conflating two ideas as the same thing, they make those who question them look foolish in the eyes of other fools. It’s lazy, but it works well enough to fool the useful idiots. Apparently, there are a lot more useful idiots than critical thinkers these days.

        1. You missed one.
          It also includes the “and therefore, the only possible reaction is for massive government intervention in virtually every sphere of human endeavor.”
          Overlooking the fact that humans have been changing climate at and beyond the level of ‘micro climes’ for millennia and things keep getting better. From the massive lead/arsenic poisoning of the landscape downwind of the Spanish mines in Roman times to the hell-on-earth of Ironbridge Gorge in England at the birth of the Industrial Revolution, and beyond, places have healed, peoples lives have gotten better.

        2. “but mankind driving the planet to destruction through some magical CO2 death spiral is not supported scientifically.”

          That’s a bit shrill, don’t you think? Even by Reason standards. The planet will not be destroyed by a few more degrees of heat. What is supported scientifically is that a crop like rice, which feeds billions, will fail if it experiences increases of only a couple of degrees at key points in its life cycle. If the crop failure is of sufficient size, it could be catastrophic.

          1. “What is supported scientifically is that a crop like rice, which feeds billions, will fail if it experiences increases of only a couple of degrees at key points in its life cycle. If the crop failure is of sufficient size, it could be catastrophic.”

            And, of course, it could well mean that we (again) alter rice so that causes no problem, but low-watt bulbs like trueman wouldn’t be able to spout trivia in that case.

            1. “trueman wouldn’t be able to spout trivia in that case.”

              I’m sure you are wrong.

    2. The “T” are doing a bang up job of killing the gay movement on its own.

      Most gays don’t realize it, but they are KILLING the movement dead while the gays sit back and applaud.

  11. Rather helping solve the problem, the march will help ensure that the issue remains politically divisive and intractable.

    But at least it will be a nice day, weather-wise.

  12. I doubt many people will be be alienated as they won’t be paying attention. I mean, Naomi fucking Klein…..hahahahahahahhahahaha.

    My tee time is at 1, will it be over by then.

  13. But they also want “an equitable and sustainable New Energy and Economic Future.” Among other things, this entails a $15 per hour minimum wage, the right to form unions, and investments targeted to give low-income Americans and people of color access to good jobs.

    Somehow “good jobs” and reducing your carbon footprint goes hand-in-hand, regardless of all LOGISTICAL problems.

  14. This is where progressives self-inflicted obtuseness about economics is really a problem. It’s not “capitalism” that results in environmental destruction, its a tragedy of the commons. We have ill-defined property rights over environmental goods like air quality and no mechanisms for identifying or compensating for costs inflicted on others as a result of climate change. The rational economic mechanism is to assign rights to goods, identify people who are harmed, apply liability, and bargain for the right to pollute, for a price.

    But progressives’ unwillingness to understand things like the price mechanism makes them fail to understand that when you properly assign costs to their originators, pollution becomes uneconomical. The market (eek, capitalism!) is capable of allocating resources to preserving environmental goods when you make those good have a price instead of being “free”.

    And ideas like the idea that the environment is too sacred to sully with icky things like money are really preventing rational economic solutions from being implemented. I really, really wish progressives would get over their idiotic disgust reactions to everything related to money.

    1. As if the Progressive-Socialists would let a little thing like the environment get in their way of building their Palace of the Parliament. They would run bulldozers over these people in their preferred type of government, but they won’t realize that until it’s too late.

    2. The revulsion towards money is a weird moral aspect of modern secular puritanism.

      1. Huh? They love money! Just ask Mark Steyer/Elon Musk/ Mike Bloomberg or almost any other well-funded climate doomsayer. They are all trying to cash in somehow on the proposed solutions. The lefties who will be marching tomorrow are their useful idiots.

    3. “The rational economic mechanism is to assign rights to goods, identify people who are harmed, apply liability, and bargain for the right to pollute, for a price.”

      Sue more, pollute less. You’re not a lawyer by any chance, are you?

      1. “Sue more, pollute less. You’re not a lawyer by any chance, are you?

        Invent strawmen. You’re not trueman, are you?

        1. This poster actually wants lawyers and judges to solve our climate problems.

          1. Because everyone voting on who gets screwed is so much more justice.

            Social Justice: When the majority gets to vote on who to fuck.

            1. Of course it’s much better when a minority (as long as they’ve been to law school) gets to decide on that stuff.

    4. Yup. I remember way back in high school when I proposed a solution to “protect the Amazon rain forest”. I failed an assignment for recommending selling it so that SOMEBODY had a reason to protect it.

  15. #Iowahawkearthday#marchforhorsepower

  16. “Climate Change” is the perfect solution for all of the prog problems. It really is perfect, because hey we are all going to die and you need to give up all your money and freedom to our cause.

    These fucks are the same as the religious right preaching the end of days in the 80s. Just like how they are the new moral outragers— now it’s from the left and not from the right.

    I was at silicon valley comic con, and it was during the “march for science”. The way they described global warming (oh sorry, climate change), and how it is going to kill us all if we don’t take action now….. it was like a fucking religion. These people have so much cognitive dissonance they are putting on a faith based sermon with the apocalypse and heretics and blasphemers during the “march for science”. Zero self awareness

  17. Commies uber all

  18. How this helps solve climate change is not at all clear.

    Obviously you’re just not woke enough to “get it.”

  19. What a fucking surprise. They are who we thought they were with a 97% consensus all along

  20. Does anyone else have an impulse to check their wallet to make sure it hasn’t been stolen anytime they see or hear about a movement that has “People’s” as the first word, or is it just me?

    1. I always assume it’s people who have more in common with North Koreans than me.

    2. Anyone who talks about “the People” (with a capital P) is almost invariably going to turn out to not care much for people.

    3. It’s not just you.

      Any group or event that has the word “People’s” in the title is a sure tip off that it’s a creation of communists.

      That goes for countries as well – The one’s that are called “The People’s Republic” of whatever.

  21. what is WRONG with you people?
    Can’t you understand that Spaceship Earth is a limited closed container, and that if we render it incapable of supporting life we’re all going to DIE?

    Is your precious ‘property’ going to be worth ANYTHING when you’re dead?
    Who owns the land? Who owns the air? Who owns the water?

    NOBODY. Those things belong to EVERYONE – collectively.

    Those of you who think of yourselves as intellectuals, and yet continue to deny the empirical and factual reality of androgenic climate change are just foolish partisans, fooling yourselves and condemning humanity to the trashheap of history along with velociraptors and Xerces Blue butterflies.

    Your precious philosophy of self-righteous greed and selfishness will not do you a bit of good when Mother Earth is no longer capable of supporting human life. Happy oblivion to us all.

    The air and water predate humanity, and will still be here after we foolishly destroy ourselves with short-sighted greed that can’t look beyond this quarter’s profit-and-loss statement.

    Arguing about who has a ‘right’ to spew toxins into the air or water based on the tried-and-true ‘might makes right’ principle of violent suppression of everyone’s right to The Earth’s abundance is analogous to two fleas fighting over which one ‘owns’ the dog that they’re both sucking the blood of.

    N_J

    1. Would it be so immoral to assign icky things like “prices” and “rights” to environmental good?

      Who owns the land? Who owns the air? Who owns the water?

      NOBODY. Those things belong to EVERYONE – collectively.

      Actually, uh, lots of places have well established land and water rights. And they are very effective at preventing people from polluting. Once we figure out air, the problem will be solved.

      But because of your retarded disgust reaction to the concept of “ownership”, you will never be able to solve the problem. You’ll sit there bitching in your moral purity, unsullied by dirty, dirty, thoughts about economic incentives, price signals and markets, unable to achieve anything.

      1. How will the act of taking ownership of the atmosphere put a dent in the climate problem? Especially if it’s somehow morally dubious, as you suggest.

        1. I’ll let someone else explain it to you, but they’ll probably use these things called “cites”, and you still won’t get it anyhow.

          1. “I’ll let someone else explain it to you”

            Confused you too, I see. Thanks for your thoughts.

            1. Nice projection of your own confusion.

        2. It’s not morally dubious. If some is harmed or has a legal right to something (property or a share of some good) that is being damaged, they have standing to demand compensation.

          Progressives are usually too stupid to figure out who is doing the harming and who is being harmed, it’s all a big mush of interconnectedness. Impossible to figure out how anything is related to anything, because their puny minds can’t handle complexity. So they resort to stupid dumb rules like “X is bad, let’s make X illegal” instead of assigning a cost to X and requiring the person producing X to compensate the person who is actually harmed by X.

          Also, ownership is not morally dubious, only idiots with overactive disgust mechanisms think it is.

          1. “If some is harmed or has a legal right to something (property or a share of some good) that is being damaged, they have standing to demand compensation.”

            Are you suggesting that I should be able to own a slice of the atmosphere and sue those responsible if its CO2 level rises? Sounds like a good business if you are a lawyer and are paid for your time in court. Otherwise, your law based solutions seem as ineffectual as Ron Bailey’s ‘market solutions.’

    2. I must ask, is this satire? It reads like satire.

      1. I’m hoping it’s not because of the high entertainment value I’m going to get out of it.

    3. We got a live one here!

      androgenic climate change

      So it’s only male humans who are responsible?

    4. androgenic climate change

      I guess I don’t watch enough Bill Nye or fucking love science the right way or somesuch ’cause I simply cannot parse that phrase. Can you please enlighten me as to what the fuck hormones have to do with your man-made climate change religion? (Is it the “man” part?)

      ‘Cause at the moment it just looks like you’re (poorly) parroting something you heard on NPR last night…

      1. Netizen_James seems to be a perfectly representative example of the ill-informed communistic useful idiots who will be clogging the capital with this March of Ignorance.

    5. N_J killing it with the parody here.

      I hope.

  22. Why didn’t these clowns just go to the Science March last weekend? I thought climate change was all about science, or are they admitting that maybe it isn’t?

    1. That was just about accepting empiricism and science as a valid basis for the formation of policy in general.
      As opposed to religious superstition and other similar ideological bullshit.

      This is more specifically about recognizing that excessive combustion is harming our planet’s ability to sustain human life.

      N_J

      1. What is empirical about AGW? Are you implying that their models have been correct, despite their failure to accurately predict future warming?

        Or perhaps you don’t understand what empirical means?

      2. Re: Netizen_James,

        That was just about accepting empiricism and science as a valid basis for the formation of policy in general.

        The valid basis for policy in general is not empiricism, but deontological moral principles, since human beings are not machines or particles.

        As opposed to religious superstition and other similar ideological bullshit.

        This is more specifically about recognizing that excessive combustion is harming our planet’s ability to sustain human life.

        You seem irony-impaired.

        1. A good point, actually. Policy based purely on empiricism could get really nasty. It’s the kind of thinking that led to forced sterilizations in the United States for a time. They were thinking they would stamp out undesirable traits in the populace. With modern genetic testing, that could get pretty ugly really fast.

          1. Exactly.

            Imagine having to test everything before you decide on a specific policy. Imagine having to wait until a study showing that companies with employees that steal go bankrupt fast before you decide to institute a “no stealing” policy. It’s absurd. The problem with considering that the only worthwhile epistemology is empiricism leaves you open to unnecessary complications.

      3. This is more specifically about recognizing that excessive combustion is harming our planet’s ability to sustain human life.

        Where would we be now without combustion? Probably extinct.

        As opposed to religious superstition and other similar ideological bullshit.

        Thanks for telling me what the climate march is really about, James

        1. “Where would we be now without combustion? Probably extinct.”

          Why extinct? Apes, rats, cockroaches all survive without the benefit of mastering fire. Why sapiens, wise man, should fail where these other species thrive?

          1. “Why extinct? Apes, rats, cockroaches all survive without the benefit of mastering fire. Why sapiens, wise man, should fail where these other species thrive?”

            Humans don’t have a hairy coat, nor do we eat rotting food without getting sick.
            See how easy that is? We’re not like them.
            Would you like some “cites”?

            1. I’ve got your hairy coat right here, monkey boy.

              1. mtrueman|4.28.17 @ 8:21PM|#
                “I’ve got your hairy coat right here, monkey boy.”

                I’m sure you’re wearing one; you are vermin, shitbag.

                1. I’ve got your vermin shitbag right here, monkey boy.

                  1. mtrueman|4.28.17 @ 8:36PM|#

                    ‘I am your vermin shitbag right here’
                    Finally, something that isn’t a lie, even if I had to correct it for you.

                    1. Very droll. And we’re once again talking about something that truly matters. Me.

  23. If you trace any claim of ‘property ownership’ (with respect to land) back far enough, you will find that ultimately, the land was taken through violence or the threat of violence.

    Jefferson paid France for the ‘Louisina purchase’. But where did the French get that land that Jefferson paid for? They STOLE it from the people who were ALREADY LIVING THERE at the time.

    If you eschew the initiation of force, then you must also eschew the concept of ‘owning’ real estate.

    The two are linked tightly, and cannot be separated.

    N_J

    1. So what? Property rights are effective mechanisms for assigning costs to pollution.
      Whether those rights were “legitimately” acquired in the distant past is beside the point.

      Human beings being human beings, if something is “unowned” , it’s going to be trashed. Deal with it.
      Thinking you’re going to give everyone brain surgery to remove their greed is not a viable option.

      1. I seem to recall Milton Friedman making this exact argument regarding human greed in a comparison between Soviet Russia and the United States. Well played.

    2. Homesteading of unowned land, or something, maybe?

    3. I still can’t decide if this is satire or not, and since it’s Friday afternoon and i’m going home soon, i can’t really bring myself to care.

    4. Sovereignty is separate from property. Property rights can be maintained after a change of sovereignty. A less than perfect example was the Mexican Cession which included a clause maintaining existing land claims. James Reavis attempted to exploit the provision to claim the Barony of Arizona.

    5. Netizen_James|4.28.17 @ 3:03PM|#
      “If you trace any claim of ‘property ownership’ (with respect to land) back far enough, you will find that ultimately, the land was taken through violence or the threat of violence.”

      Remedial reading for left-wing nutjobs:
      “The Horse, The Wheel, and Language”; David W. Anthony.
      At one time, there was ‘way more land than there were people, so unless you include taking it from animals by violence, you’re full of shit.

    6. But where did the French get that land that Jefferson paid for? They STOLE it from the people who were ALREADY LIVING THERE at the time.

      No, they were not. 95% of the people that used to be there had largely been killed by European diseases. On top of that, many of those people had either traded away the land, gambled the land away in warfare, or didn’t have a concept of land ownership at all.

      If you eschew the initiation of force, then you must also eschew the concept of ‘owning’ real estate.

      Quite the opposite: the threat of force is a legitimate means of maintaining property rights.

  24. “post-capitalist utopia”–they keep using the term, but have no idea what they are asking. Building factories or warehouses takes capital (which is where the term capitalism comes from). If it does not come from stock markets (ie, investors) where do they think it will come from? Judging from the Occupy movements, they hate the very idea of capital and stock markets and business. Perhaps they prefer Venezuela? Or maybe Cuba? They have been all gaga over Chavez, Maduro and Castro for decades, though tellingly none of them move to those countries. Either the money comes from stock markets or it comes from government ownership (ie communism). Those are your choices unless you seriously believe the back to the land hokum that Klein promotes–go ahead, try to live off your backyard garden.

    1. ” none of them move to those countries.”

      You may have to rethink your argument; I heard that one of them moved to one of them countries not too long ago.

  25. “man-made climate change”?

    No.

    The climate changes without any input from people whatsoever. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age, yeah, that necessarily means warming.

    Aside from that, I’m an economist-

    WARMING IS GOOD.

    There is no crisis. There never was any crisis. There is only hysteria.

    1. So the scientific consensus that does exist (yes, it does) is some sort of global conspiracy? That’s the only explanation that comes to mind if they’re all “wrong.”

      I mean, come on. One can be critical of the lefts tactics without abandoning respect for research and scientific inquiry.

      1. 32000 degreed scientists signed the petition project that to this day blocks the senate from ratifying the Kyoto treaty. Their names are posted at the site alphabetically and by state. Faceless bureaucrats claim there are sth like 1200 ex-scientists nobody can find listed anywhere, but whom they believe, by Revelation, must surely add up to more than the 640,000 that would be needed to inflate to a “95% consensus” figure. This is assuming every insister on evidence is a petition project signer. But there are thousands of real scientists in addition to those. Jo Nova reported today that the number of True Believers in Cassandra’s Climate Religion among meteorologists dropped by nearly a fifth since last year. No verifiable claim puts the number warm-mongers above 40%. Mysticism of both the christianofascist and econazi varieties is fast decaying toward zero, and that is a good thing. It means more energy and fewer wars.

      2. I mean, come on. One can be critical of the lefts tactics without abandoning respect for research and scientific inquiry.

        It is precisely because I have respect for research and scientific inquiry that I reject the notion of a “scientific consensus”.

        1. What he said.

  26. It’s just as well that they’re likely to alienate the public. Global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption started out as good science and may still have a nub of science left, but is now mainly a totalitarian cult. This can be seen in the unscientific demand that skeptics (falsely labeled “climate deniers”) be punished for their heresy. But that’s really just the excuse for the radical left to do another protest march for all the usual causes.

    1. “but is now mainly a totalitarian cult. ”

      Says the guy who assures us the invisible hand of the market is going to put everything right.

      1. “Says the guy who assures us the invisible hand of the market is going to put everything right.”

        Why do you bother to lie so transparently? He posted nothing of the sort.

        1. “He posted nothing of the sort.”

          Says the guy who assures us the invisible hand of the market is going to put everything right.

          1. Why do you bother to lie so transparently? I posted nothing of the sort.

            1. “Why do you bother to lie so transparently?”

              Why not? You think you deserve better?

              1. Proud of yourself for posting more lies?
                I thought so.

      2. Says the guy who assures us the invisible hand of the market is going to put everything right.

        The invisible hand gets lots of things wrong. However, it still does a better job than any known alternative.

        1. I’ve yet to see this invisible hand sorting out the atmosphere. Nuclear, carbon sequestration, taxes, the preferred solutions bruited about here hardly rely on market forces, but government coercion.

      3. Says the guy that thinks the government can do a better job, despite the mountain ranges of evidence to the contrary.

  27. “It’s another example of social justice movements hijacking the problem of climate change and using it as a pretext for attacking our system of market-tested betterment and innovation.”

    You think that’s bad. how about Reason’s science editor damaging the cause of Capital by proposing such ‘market-tested solutions’ as nuclear power, carbon sequestration and of course, taxes.

  28. Much of the “left’s” tactics are becoming more and more cringe-inducing, as they further isolate themselves politically by using seemingly well-intentioned causes as nothing more than oppositional political fronts. It’s all about Trump, all the time. Movements never sustain themselves when they are “anti” everything without a shred of principle. Much of the left is now indicative of a mob of reactionaries who share the authoritarian impulses of the perceived right. The ironic part is that they have far more in common with the Trump train than they realize.

    As ridiculous as Nationalism is in the U.S. (“nation” is “a people”, which at least is a shade closer to reality in Europe’s history, unlike a uniquely immigrant country such as the U.S.), it appears much of the left is arm in arm with them in abandoning their last reminants of enlightenment principles in lieu of incoherent mob mentality.

  29. The “problem of man made climate change”? Beg that question!

  30. Maybe if the left didn’t make such stupid claims, they wouldn’t have to be so defensive:

    “Jerry Brown on California drought: ‘Climate change is not a hoax’
    […]
    “California Gov. Jerry Brown said on Sunday the water rations he imposed in the wake of an historic drought should serve as a “wake-up call” not just for residents of his home state but everyone.
    “I can tell you, from California, climate change is not a hoax,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “We’re dealing with it, and it’s damn serious.”
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jer…..e-not-hoax

    “Heavy rain forces California residents to evacuate”
    […]
    “SAN FRANCISCO ? Evacuations were ordered in Central California on Monday and flash-flood warnings were issued elsewhere as downpours swelled creeks and rivers to troubling levels in the already soggy region.
    People living along a section of the Carmel River in Monterey County were told to leave, as were those in a neighborhood of Salinas near Santa Rita Creek and a few people in rural Royal Oaks, where a mudslide encroached on a home.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017…..cuate.html

  31. Ronald still doesn’t get it. There is no problem of climate change. Data from the same United States Historical Climatology Network temperature measuring stations that have been operating from 1920 up to right now graph as just barely decreasing temperature. This is ordinary data plotting from publicly posted data, no adjustments, fudging or faking needed. The trendline has negative slope. Subsidized climate hucksters tweak and fiddle to produce rising trendlines from the resulting imaginary data, but that is ordinary fraud, not science.

  32. Peoples Climate March

    The really aren’t even bothering to hide their communist beliefs anymore, are they.

  33. I guess as long as the small government, free market types ignore climate change (except to deny any cause for concern), it leaves the field wide open to wackos.

  34. Naomi Klein made this agenda explicit in her 2014 book This Changes Everything, which asserted that climate science has given progressives “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever. Canonical Marxism predicted that capitalism would collapse under the weight of its class “contradictions,” in which the bourgeoisie profit from the proletariat’s labor until we reach a social breaking point. In Klein’s update, capitalism will collapse because the pollution produced by heedless overconsumption will build to an ecological breaking point. “Only mass social movements can save us now,” she declared.

    The irony of the polluted shitholes that are Communist countries, I assume, is lost on her. Just look at photos of East and West Germany right after the Berlin Wall came down.

  35. Until ANYBODY can actually explain what the end goal is, this is meaningless.

    What SHOULD the temperature be? It’s too hot now? OK…what is the TARGET?
    Would anybody trust a building built by an architect whose buildings never remain standing because he is shitty at math? Why would we trust the God awful climate models to justify wrecking the global economy?

    And why do they want people to die so badly?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.