We marched – now it’s time to get to work

  • Mail this page!
  • Delicious
  • 0

I applaud the hundreds of thousands of people who, because they care about the threats to the earth’s capacity to sustain human life into the future, marched in Augusta, in New York, in Washington and around the country on April 29. Now it is time to get to work to maintain the momentum. Studies have shown that marches alone do not usually generate results. Ongoing organized political action is essential if we are to keep the increase in average global temperature below 2 degrees. Now is the time to act on both local and national levels. For example, attend Portland City Council meetings and write your councilor in support of Portland’s 100% Clean Energy by 2014 resolution. Meet with your state senator and representative and urge them to support solar legislation (LD 1373, LD 1444, LD 1124 and LD 1313). Contact Sens. King and Collins and Reps. Pingree and Poliquin and tell them you support climate action now. Join an organization such as 350 Maine, the Sierra Club’s Portland Climate Action Team, which supports mitigation efforts on a local level, or Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which advocates for a federal carbon fee and dividend legislation. Action on the personal level is also vital: reduce your own carbon footprint by taking the bus or walking, weatherizing your home, buying an electric car, installing solar panels, eating less meat, etc. Talk to everyone you know about why this is important to you. Don’t let a day go by without doing something. The future of the human race depends upon it.

Sarah Braik


  • Charles Martel

    Well, Sarah why don’t you tell that to the ChiComs?

    I see “Fat Albert” is coming out with a sequel to his 2006 faux-umentray “Inconvenient Truth”. When will these alarmists learn the difference between pollution which no one wants and global warming/cooling which the globalists want?

    How did Fat Albert go from a net worth between $700K-$1.9m in 2000 when he ran for president to $176m today? Answer: selling 20% ownership in Current TV to al-Jazeera, his stake in Google and Apple, investing in hedge funds and real estate, giving speeches and, of course, his valuable contribution to the “science” of climate change.

    Again, “The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution. Pick any agenda: gay rights, civil rights, the environment, immigration. You name it. To the Left the issue is only relevant if it advances their agenda of accumulating power and wealth to the exclusion of all else.”

    • Just Sayin’

      So tell me. In this little fantasy of yours, where apparently everything the left does is a powergrab conspiracy, how exactly did they get over 97% of the world’s scientists to go on record backing up all the climate change claims?

      Keep in mind we’re talking global numbers of scientists, not just US or US affiliated scientists. These aren’t all people with a bias or agenda in American politics. They’re people who seek objective truth about the world around us. How is it that they were all convinced to play into the claims, if they are, as you claim, largely false? If they were bribed, why haven’t we seen a big whistleblower showing the proof of that, or investigators who can follow the money?

      For that matter, how about the previous climate change models that have been openly mocked by the right, many of which have not only been proven true, but they UNDER represented the speed and dangers of climate change?

      I’m sure it’s a much more comforting thought to assume it’s a bunch of whackjobs with an agenda, but look even a little bit at the situation and you’ll see just how completely far-fetched such a notion is.

      • truther

        That’s the most amazing part of the whole global warming conspiracy — that these scientists around the world not only got together decades ago and all agreed to perpetuate some planet-wide hoax about climate change, but that they then got the planet itself to go along with it and actually change its climate in ways the scientists predicted would happen. And that after all this time there isn’t a single reputable scientist who’s been able to show how they faked it all. It’s almost as if . . . global warming is real.

        • danmaine

          And it hasn’t statistically risen in almost 2 DECADES!

      • Charles Martel

        So why doesn’t Fat Albert debate Sir Christopher Monckton?

        • Just Sayin’

          Way to try to dodge the questions I posed to you. How about you answer them instead?

          • Charles Martel

            It’s not a dodge; it’s a waste of time. Environmentalism has become the religion of the Left.

          • Just Sayin’

            So in other words, you can’t answer my questions.

            I mean, you were the one to start this comment thread and claim it was a leftist powergrab, but you can’t even answer the slightest scrutiny to that concept, or answer any of the most basic questions about it?

            Way to back down, Chuck.

          • Charles Martel

            Just, Discussing global warming with a Leftist is much the same as discussing “the Religion of Peace”, A waste of breath and time.

          • Just Sayin’

            No, you raised a big honking strawman argument, and you lack the knowledge or the ability to argue the points you made. I’d still love to discuss them, but you’re disappointingly not showing the integrity to stand by your words.

            Frankly Chuck, anything you say that isn’t a genuine attempt to back up the argument you made is, at this point, only proof that you’re full of hot air.

          • Charles Martel

            Seems as though your 97% is more like 47%. See #6, Just:

            Also, this is Just one of many clips by Lord Monckton:

            Now Just, please retreat to your safe space.

          • Just Sayin’

            Seems like you never bothered to read the actual study. It says nothing of the kind. Nowhere does it directly ask whether the scientists involved believe that climate change is human caused.

            There is one question that gets close to it, but even then it still shows an over 85% rate towards respondants believing that climate change is caused by human activity, with most of those in the 15% still believing that human activity has significant contributions to the issue.

            If you’d like to actually read the study, instead of believing what your highly right-wing biased site will tell you about it, you can find it here: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

            Also, I have to point out here Chuck, you were the one to make an inflammatory statement and then object to others speaking up about it. If anyone here has been acting like they need a safe space, it’s you.

      • danmaine

        Because your 97% claim is a farce, read the study then get back to us. A two question survey that didn’t even ask the question has been used for propaganda by the left.
        next you answer these questions:

        Can you explain to me How The Last Ice Age ended?
        Can you explain to me how the cycle of Ice Ages began?
        Can you explain why it was also warming on the other planets in our solar system where man does not live?
        What is the temperature supposed to be?
        Since it has been changing for the last 100,000 years it’s hard to pick a temperature that has stayed the same.

        And since we see from the fossil record that many of the animals that once lived on this continent have died off, IE two toed sloths, Mammoths, saber toothed cats, along with the flightless mega birds that once lived on the north American continent. Could not the extinctions of species we see today just be an extension of the same climate change that killed off the three toed sloths. Or does your religion of lies prevent you from asking questions and thinking. Because your remarks certainly make you Ignorant of Earths long and varied history. Answer any and all you feel you can.

        • Just Sayin’

          Let’s take a moment and look at the study you’re pointing me to at proof.

          It’s a study done on members of the American Meteorological Society, so it’s hardly indicative of the totality of scientific belief.

          The abstract alone points out that the pool of AMS members had a far smaller amount of support for the idea of human caused climate change than was normal for most other pools of scientists.

          It’s also worth noting that the AMS took a political stance against the concept of human-caused climate change, causing many of the members who believed otherwise to quit the organization of disgust.

          This is the study you’re going to use to try to prove your point? A niche study that’s been cherrypicked to be heavily biased in your point of view?

          And, lest we forget, these are -weathermen-, the people who can’t get the forecast right for three days from now.

          Forgive me, but I’ll need some more solid and reputable proof than this.