• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hundreds Of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

Grand Mal said:
Hmm... Are you saying there's no evidence that the world's climate is warming?
Click to expand...

Well not for the ladt 17 yrs or so. Despite increasing CO2.

Climate warms and cools and has been doing so forever.

There are only computer models to prove greenhouse effect.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Hundreds Of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

Quite possible the biggest climate march in history was held today in NYC! But what they are protesting for (policy changes to offset climate change), is all a farce! :lamo[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

OL yea i read about this.

Far Left Climate Activists Leave Mounds of Trash For Cities to Deal With | The Gateway Pundit

they also showed up in smog polluting busses left tons of trash laying around and were overall pretty disgusting to the point they couldn't even use a trash can to throw their stuff way.

talk about a way to destroy your own message.

Climate change skeptics call out marchers’ ‘hypocrisies’ | New York Post

then there were the people that took private planes and other such thing.
then there was the massive traffic backup which caused even more pollutants to escape.

i don't see how this was a very green event can you show me?
 
donsutherland1 said:
Even as I accept the general scientific understanding of climate change, including the anthropogenic contribution, I'm not sure this march was the most effective way to go about the issue. That there were many non-climate-related messages only muddies the overall message on the scientific understanding of climate change. Attacks on nuclear power, capitalism, etc., may actually strengthen opposition to realistic climate change policy initiatives. If policy makers and the general public are presented with the position that one can only address climate change by abandoning market economics, that position will prove non-viable. Even as there are limitations e.g., externalities, associated with market economics, no better system has been devised and one cannot dismiss the enormous standard of living benefits that have been produced from a more market-oriented arrangement. Realistic and balanced policy approaches, not purist demands, offer the most promising prospect of moving away from "business as usual" in the longer-run. I don't believe this march contributed toward that end.
Click to expand...

I agree about the confusion of messages but they can't ban certain signs, and even if they could they probably wouldn't. However, from what I've seen of the pics, the overwhelming majority of the signs were on topic. If someone gets the idea that these people are opposed to capitalism, it's because they went in thinking that and looked for confirmation for their bias.
 
iguanaman said:
The problem is that truly making a difference in Co2 emissions requires some sacrifices on the part of people and corporations. Sacrifice is not popular even if it is necessary. Traditional market forces will not work in reducing Co2 emissions, governments must step in.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. In agriculture, which is one of the biggest consumers of petroleum and petroleum products, there are proven technologies which reduce the use of energy and the emission of Co2 into the atmosphere.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
In general, conservatives groups have generally been good about cleaning up after themselves. How often do you hear of a Tea Party rally where the place that it occurred was left trashed afterward?
Click to expand...
tea_party_littler_912.jpg


575bc5dc_trash5.jpeg
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see you just believe the OP without reading the attached link for the poster's accuracy.



These are the buses they know of. What do these charter buses hold? 60 people or more, right? 60 x 550 = 33,000.
Click to expand...

IOW, 33,000 people used mass transit
 
People Climate March is misleading. They should call it what it really is: Eco-socialism Rally.
 
Wonder what the carbon footprint for this event was. Factoring transportation to and from, food and liquid consumption during the event, signage, etc.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, because there's almost double that who are unemployed in the city itself and they have plenty of time on their hands. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Ah...so it's only lazy unemployed people who want action on climate change? Perhaps you should have a talk with the CEO of Google sometime....
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see you just believe the OP without reading the attached link for the poster's accuracy.



These are the buses they know of. What do these charter buses hold? 60 people or more, right? 60 x 550 = 33,000.
Click to expand...

In other words, just over one-tenth of the total people in the march (300K was what was reported by ABC News while I was watching Good Morning America). And that's taking your word for it about the buses, without even double-checking your own claim for accuracy.
 
sangha said:
I agree about the confusion of messages but they can't ban certain signs, and even if they could they probably wouldn't. However, from what I've seen of the pics, the overwhelming majority of the signs were on topic. If someone gets the idea that these people are opposed to capitalism, it's because they went in thinking that and looked for confirmation for their bias.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Nevertheless, even the modest number of off-topic signs was given prominent even disproportionate coverage in the media and blogosphere. Not surprising, those who contest the scientific basis of climate change are using the march as "evidence" that those who accept the scientific understanding of climate change are outside the proverbial mainstream, pose a threat to the nation's high standard of living, etc. Drowned out are the data that the observed warming is continuing (2014 could rank among the three warmest years in the major datasets), the costs associated with gradually but persistently rising sea levels (something that is increasingly being considered by the insurance industry), etc.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I don't disagree. Nevertheless, even the modest number of off-topic signs was given prominent even disproportionate coverage in the media and blogosphere. Not surprising, those who contest the scientific basis of climate change are using the march as "evidence" that those who accept the scientific understanding of climate change are outside the proverbial mainstream, pose a threat to the nation's high standard of living, etc. Drowned out are the data that the observed warming is continuing (2014 could rank among the three warmest years in the major datasets), the costs associated with gradually but persistently rising sea levels (something that is increasingly being considered by the insurance industry), etc.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah! People are using self-selected data to make propoganda. That will always be the case.

But the people who are convinced by such evidence were people who were already convinced that was the case. The point of the protest wasn't to convince anyone that the scientific data is accurate. The point was to demonstrate public support for policies which would help address the problem.
 
Grand Mal said:
According to NASA, the warmest year since 1880 was 2010.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the 15 warmest years (land and ocean temperatures) on the GISS dataset are:

1. 2010 +0.666°C
2. 2005 +0.658°C
3. 2014 +0.653°C (through August)
4. 2007 +0.627°C
5. 1998 +0.616°C
6. 2002 +0.613°C
7. 2013 +0.610°C
8. 2003 +0.602°C
9. 2006 and 2009 +0.594°C
11. 2012 +0.572°C
12. 2011 +0.548°C
13. 2001 +0.530°C
14. 2004 +0.514°C
15. 2008 +0.493°C

Decadal Average Anomalies:
1970-79: +0.026°C
1980-89: +0.211°C
1990-99: +0.370°C
2000-09: +0.563°C
2010-14: +0.610°C (through August 2014)

The last year that saw a cold anomaly was 1976 (-0.121°C). The last month that saw a cold anomaly was February 1994 (-0.010°C).

The complete dataset can be found at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wait! 97% of scientists are in on a conspiracy with green energy! I forgot!
Click to expand...

Wait....97% of the IPCC cherry picked scientists are in on a conspiracy with green AGW.
 
jmotivator said:
"Climate Justice"? Seriously?

Oh hey look, "Climate Justice" is wealth redistribution... now it makes sense.

Look, guys, this was a Socialist rally, not a climate rally. Just accept it.

Granted, you can't tell the Socialists from the Climate alarmists anymore.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!!!! This IS the post of the thread
 
CO2 has been a leading indicator and a lagging indicator regarding global warming, soooo.......
 
Meister said:
Actually, scientists believe there have been FIVE MAJOR ICEAGES....yeah, how do the cultists reconcile that?

How Many Ice Ages Were There?
Click to expand...

This is such a silly argument. It's as absurd as making the following argument:

Since the first forests, there have been forest fires. There have been forest fires long before man was here. In fact, there have have been forest fires in areas man has not settled. Thus man cannot possible cause a forest fire.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is such a silly argument. It's as absurd as making the following argument:

Since the first forests, there have been forest fires. There have been forest fires long before man was here. In fact, there have have been forest fires in areas man has not settled. Thus man cannot possible cause a forest fire.
Click to expand...

Liberals would say that it is a silly argument, but fact of the matter is that the Earth has been cooling and warming for the last 4.5 billion years with or without Man. And, will continue to do so with or without Man. It ain't us....period.
 
Meister said:
CO2 has been a leading indicator and a lagging indicator regarding global warming, soooo.......
Click to expand...

Basic chemistry. Colder water has a higher dissolved atmospheric gas content. The colder the water, in this case the oceans, the more C02 that is sequestered by it. The warmer the water, the less C02 that is sequestered by it. Thus as past orbital variations lead to an ice age, the oceans cooled, more C02 was sequestered by them, and climatic cooling was amplified further (as well as from increased ice coverage). When past orbital variations lead to warming periods, the oceans warmed, less C02 was sequestered by them and thus more was released into the atmosphere, and climate warming was amplified as a result. This is all well established in the paleoclimatic record.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Basic chemistry. Colder water has a higher dissolved atmospheric gas content. The colder the water, in this case the oceans, the more C02 that is sequestered by it. The warmer the water, the less C02 that is sequestered by it. Thus as past orbital variations lead to an ice age, the oceans cooled, more C02 was sequestered by them, and climatic cooling was amplified further (as well as from increased ice coverage). When past orbital variations lead to warming periods, the oceans warmed, less C02 was sequestered by them and thus more was released into the atmosphere, and climate warming was amplified as a result. This is all well established in the paleoclimatic record.
Click to expand...
CO2....regarding global warming has been a lagging indicator and a leading indicator, which means what to you?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is such a silly argument. It's as absurd as making the following argument:

Since the first forests, there have been forest fires. There have been forest fires long before man was here. In fact, there have have been forest fires in areas man has not settled. Thus man cannot possible cause a forest fire.
Click to expand...

It has been suggested that the accumulated CO2 release from naturally caused forest fires throughout the ages has released many more times the CO2 into the atmosphere than the total amount of CO2 released by man since the dawn of modern man.

Why wasn't the climate impacted then?


This is an article that touches on the subject. There is something quite interesting about the study, and the matter of follow up to it's implications.

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - U.S. Fires Release Enormous Amounts of Carbon Dioxide - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
 
Timeline for right wingers acceptance of mainstream science:

On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. 156 years later most polling indicates that approximately 37% of conservatives accept the Theory of Evolution. Thus we can conclude that by 2060 the majority of conservatives will accept what has been universally accepted in science for 150 years now.

The first IPCC assessment was released in 1990. Thus we can assume that the majority of conservatives will not accept AGW until approximately 2190. As it seems to take approximately 8 generations for conservatives to arrive at the same position that mainstream science can arrive at in 1 generation. :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom