Protesters Hold Massive Rallies Against Emissions, Climate Change

New York Times:

Campaigners against global warming have drawn on an arsenal of visually startling tactics over the years, from posing nude on a Swiss glacier to scaling smokestacks at coal-fired power plants.

On Saturday, they tried something new with the goal of prodding countries to get serious about reaching an international climate accord: a synchronized burst of more than 4,300 demonstrations...

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[RomeoMD25]

Goldman Sachs to be carbon regulator?

So does this mean that freebooting Goldman Sachs could be the de facto regulator of the carbon market?

As the global warming bubble inflates and then bursts, will Goldman
Sachs self-regulate all the way to the bank… making record profits at the expense and misery of taxpayers and consumers

[mauibob]

I may suggest you either change pictures or edit your headline. My immediate family has more members in it than is shown in that photo and it does not look very "massive".

[mauibob]

Take the government money away from these global warming scientists and only offer it to those who want to study how little man causes global warming and watch the massive shift in the scientific "results".

[opprobrious]

So you want to defund science?

[kyosaku]

This link, posted earlier by ABSORB, has compelled me to change my position almost 180 degrees. It is the most compelling review of science that I had previously scoffed at or misunderstood. The science is cohesive and coherent. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has motivated me to look further for solid science that disproves the popular notions of global warming.

To my friend Paul, who has been arguing with me for years about this issue, I think I was wrong.

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx?utm_source=GTVPlayer-&utm_medium=LopendFilmpjeExtern

[opprobrious]

You watch one video and you're mind changes? Ask yourself, what is the evil agenda behind the proponents of cliamte change? Why would they want to put forward an idea that man is having a significant impact on climate? To sell movies? Are all those scientists getting kickbacks from Al Gore? Now the deniers, on the other hand. I can see why they'd like to refute the science. It's really tough to justify blowing up whole mountains to extract coal or using up vast amounts of fresh water to extract oil if burning coal and oil isn't sustainable.

[mergina]

All governments and corporations are sitting on their greedy hands over this. They will definitely wish they hadn't in the coming decades.

[quisp65]

Don't think so. Nothing that is being offered is a fix for global warming. The only real solution is radical population control. The "enviromental movement" has been hijacked by political ideologies of the left.

[opprobrious]

So you think we need population control and you don't like leftists. Hmmm. Where you going with this, Adolph?

[thatsitfortheotherwon]

Aside from solar radiation and the occasional meteor, planet earth is essentially a closed system. You'd have to be kind of witless to think you can pump massive amounts of burned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and not change anything.

And Jethro, the world isn't as big as you think it is. It just seems that way when you ride your mule down to the general store.

[opprobrious]

Well said. There will always be someone who will argue against an idea no matter the state of the situation. Too bad there's really no time for such polite discussion.

[october2009]

These protesters want what the U.N., Wall Street, and Enron want.

They want every citizen of the world to buy pollution permits (carbon credits) from the U.N. so then AIG, GE, and Goldman Sachs can trade them in their trillion dollar carbon exchange system.

They think that by punishing the citizens of the world, our politicians will allow other individuals to compete against oil and coal companies.

[HonestJohnnis]

carbon credits are really one of the worst ways to approach the very real threat of global warming.. I really wish there was another way we could get this ball moving. Then again If more people were reasonable enough to learn the basic science behind the greenhouse effect the argument would be about how to best implement the a clean system, instead of this he said she said garbage we've been getting from the science-less political opinion debate these seedy republicans and liberals have ruined hard science with.

[opprobrious]

Implementing a clean system fixes a lot of other problems associated with our current energy use model. Arguing as to whether global warming exists or not is a really besides the point. There are plenty of other environmental and geopolitical problems created as a result of over dependence on oil and coal etc. This really is a nobrainer.

[natron]

Does anyone else find this article counter-productive in that it spends more time talking about whether '350' is a realistic number than it spends time talking about the real goals and meanings behind this protest? On that note, in only one sentence in the whole article mentions "nonetheless, the effort has been endorsed by dozens of prominent figures" and yet never interviews any of these voices (it does interview the founder of 350.org, but by only using an activist instead of a scientist to defend the claim, it essentially discredits it in the ears of an undecided reader) ...

[graffitijoe]

5 years from now we will all look back at this and laugh - like Y2K, beanie babies and the Spice Girls.

[Jazzman323]

Every day we see more scientist dispell "climate change," and move beyond Al Gore's "facts," yet people still want to cling to it like some type of old religion. Why??

[HonestJohnnis]

please show me one case where they use actual scientific data analysis to support their opinions? because at this point, nothing I have ever read from the opposing viewpoint has ever stepped beyond opinion, an opinion almost always linked to an exxon check. REAL scientists may have disagreements on certain subject such as the "iceless" by 2030 but the science behind climate change is still 100% supported.

[atomic]

Use your brain ... how do you think our civilization exists? It survives by bringing resources into populated areas ... which mean that cities require mass amounts of support from energy to food sources outside their borders. The world is being stripped and poisoned. This is a violent process which is destroying the environment and devastating whole eco systems. Never in the history of the world have there been almost 7 billion people. Even if climate change is not the result of man (which it is) we still have huge sustainability problems. Take for example the Texas sized floating plastic island floating in the Pacific Ocean where the currents naturally form a whirlpool. Or the toxic chemicals being dumped on a massive scale that are poisoning land and water. Why would anyone not support whatever we can do to make this a clean and healthy place to live forever?

The only reason there is a debate is because the elite corporations who are making money destroying the earth don't want their rigged system to stop. So they put a huge amount of money into lying about and confusing the facts for support. IN the end it does not matter ... you should have enough evidence in your own experience to see we have a huge problem. Just think about the waste you dispose of in a year. How mush meat you consume and how much gas you use. How many plastic bottles to you throw out in a year?

[graffitijoe]

Same old reason - to make a buck.

[HonestJohnnis]

just because something can make money the basic scientific evidence behind it is completely discredited? I thank the grand FSM that as with all technology, the green variety makes money, otherwise my childrens children would REALLY be screwed.

[marco01]

Who stands to profit by denying AGW?

The Cui Bono "argument" is tired and weak.

[ThoughtfulTom]

I think the important question is - do the birthers, deathers and deniers foretell the death of America? We have become a world power based on our scientific prowess, which requires critical thinking. Each of these groups (roughly 20% of the population - hopefully the same 20%) is rabidly anti-science and anti-rational.

Is it just the internet allows them to subject us normal folks to their views - or are they a growing segment, capable of taking the world's biggest economy, strongest military, brightest workforce, etc., etc., down with them as they hysterically trill about taxes and communists and whatever it is they say?

[Ramirez]

Global warming was popular when everyone knew they could support it for free. As soon as it looks like the Western world is gonna have to provide trillions in funding to everyone else in the world support drops off pretty dramatically.

[Jazzman323]

I think the facts are responsible for the drop of support for global warming, but, yes, people think twice when it ivolves doling out their money.

[HonestJohnnis]

and which facts would those be?

[caveman1313]

would have been more impressive if they had used 350,000 parts per billion.

bigger number.

i would have been interested in being part of the ,

[caveman1313]

how much carbon was spewed in conducting these demonstrations? and in taking and posting and downloading all the images?

your capitalistic consumption (and carbon emissions) in the pursuit of carbon reduction would make al gore proud.

[caveman1313]

does 350 represent how many dollars a second al gore is making off of these fools?