Several Sunday events on the UWS this weekend will result in street closures, and any cars left on the streets will be towed. A massive march to raise awareness about climate change is being held on Sunday, and people will be gathering beforehand on the Upper West Side. That means several street swill be closed and police will begin towing cars on Saturday night. The info in the bottom right of the poster above is hard to read, but it’s also included below.
Also on Sunday, there will be a street fair on Columbus from 66th to 86th streets, and Bloomingdale Family Days on Amsterdam from 106th to 110th. This city website lists street closures throughout the city (though sometimes it misses a few). If we’re missing any other events and closures, let us know. Oh, and just to keep things fun, the U.N. is in town this week!
The info below about the climate march is from Council Member Helen Rosenthal’s office:
However, that means there will be CROWDS of people and BUSES and some STREET CLOSURES.
Please help spread the word so no one has their CAR TOWED.
Cars must be off the street for Sunday use:
NYPD will tow your car.
CPW: 59th – 86th
TOWING BEGINS at 3am Sunday morningAmsterdam: 73rd – 86th
TOWING BEGINS at 3am Sunday Morning
SIDE STREETS
Cars in this area won’t be towed, but you will have LIMITED ACCESS to your cars from EARLY Sunday morning until 2-3pm.
WHAT TO EXPECT:
- Central Park West, from 59th Street to 86th Street, will be CLOSED at 7 am
- Columbus Avenue, from 66th Street to 86th Street, will be CLOSED at 7 am
- Central Park 79th Street Transverse will be CLOSED at 7 am
- Central Park 81st Street Transverse will be CLOSED at 7 am
- Amsterdam Avenue, East Side, from 72nd Street to 86th Street, will be CLOSED at 7 am
- 65th Street through Park is currently planned to remain open to traffic
- 86th Street through the Park is currently planned to remain open to traffic
- Both of the above streets are subject to immediate closures if the situation changes
If your car is parked in any of the following locations, it will be TOWED and RELOCATED by NYPD:
- All cars parked on Central Park West (CPW)
- All cars parked on 86th Street – North and South – from Broadway to CPW
- All cars parked on the EAST side of Amsterdam, from 72nd Street to 86th Street
- All cars parked on Columbus Avenue, from 66th Street to 86th Street (Street Fair)
Thank you
Was this rather excessive and belligerent plan put together to make sure people hate people who support reforms to protect the planet? It really seems excessive.
Most of the events in Manhattan on Sunday are annual events with permits issued a long time ago, for example the Columbus Avenue “Street Fair”, Mexican parade and other “street fairs.”
The Climate March is a one-time thing. In NYC in the “old days” it might have taken place in Central Park. But it was given a route that goes west, near Lincoln Tunnel (which does not sound sensible.)
Unfortunately, it sounds as if there will be complete gridlock in Manhattan. Especially as buses try to get in/out of Manhattan.
Since this march was planned to coincide with events at the UN, why couldn’t they stay on the east side of the park and march to the UN (and stay out of our neighborhood)?
So right Pedestrian. Why am I yet again a prisoner in my apartment. Isn’t this a march about climate change? So why should the streets be closed because of buses? Why isn’t EVERYONE in the march taking public transportation or riding a bike? Where is the bike parking?
Can neighbors enter Central Park at west 86th street or west 81th street for other activities on Sunday September 21?
I think entrances to the park are open, but getting through crowds and barriers to get there could be tricky. Avi
Socialists marching for an Enron level outright scam, proven here is a single glance at the bladeless input data of the latest Orwellian hockey stick revision of climate history:
https://oi60.tinypic.com/2lwtawk.jpg
Numerous media organizations and the ACLU filed briefs in support of free speech advocate Mark Steyn who Michael Mann is suing for calling him a fraud. Not a single brief was filed in favor of Mann, calling the bluff of the entire climate “science” establishment.
Divinity major, tobacco farmer, and jet ski on a yacht near a seaside palace owner Al Gore sold his nearly worthless cable TV channel to the oil kingdom of Qatar for nearly half a *billion* dollars. Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones of Climategate infamy who still publishes the most common global average temperature plot, now uses a Saudi university as affiliation for his scientific papers.
Yet they march for these charlatans!
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry with honor (Columbia/Harvard)
Full size image of the climate “science” fraud exposed:
https://s28.postimg.org/7d9isipx9/image.jpg
How can this be ignored? It boggles the mind. No degree is needed, just objectivity.
The Al Gore effect in earnest, an astonishing record breaking Antarctic ice record, skyrocketing above the old maximum:
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Actual Global Warming theory predicted polar amplification of warming, not a mildly cooling Antarctica, where 90% of ice on the planet is trapped in such a deep freeze it won’t melt much at all with a mere handful of degrees of potential warming. It thus becomes a sea level sink in a mildly warming world, and only liars claim the opposite, liars who deny basic physics.
Hey, Nik, do you wear your tinfoil hat in a porkpie style or more of a fedora?
I’m not the person wearing the End Is Nigh sandwich board. That person happens to be *you*, denier of my two presented facts:
(A) The latest hockey stick vindication of Mann has no blade in the input data. Nor was it present in the Ph.D. thesis the data originated from. The blade was later created fraudulently by re-dating low lying temperature proxies to afford sudden spurious data drop off at the end as a pure artifact. Yet I show mathematician Mann widely promoting it. A coauthor described it to NY Times reporter Revkin as a “super hockey stick” with a swoosh gesture, over archived video chat.
(B) World sea ice extent this year returned right back up to its long term average since both Antarctica *and* the Arctic showed huge gains in ice coverage.
Do you dispute or accept these facts? If you dispute facts, who is in the doomsday cult wearing the tinfoil hat? Me, or the big oil money conspiracy theorists who just hurl insults, revealing their lack of substance?
Call recent Columbia department of chemistry chairman Colin Nuckolls, my old labmate who thanked me profusely in his thesis, after I won the top organic division student award upon defending my thesis in front of a future Am. Chem. Soc. predident (Breslow) and a future Nobelist (Chalfie), before I did a three year postdoc at Harvard. Ask him what he thinks of his old pal Nik’s scientific reputation in the department, won’t you?
Antarctic ice is at a record high, but Arctic ice is very low: https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/17/antarctic-arctic-sea-ice-extent/15780449/
But I guess facts are facts, right?
Is not a sudden surge being called a “shrinkage” a SCAM?
Link I left out to Arctic ice area yearly variation plots:
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Not the extremely deceptive wording of the article you cite:
“Though the amount of sea ice at the Antarctic should set an all-time record high this month, Arctic ice shrank to its sixth-lowest level on record, scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported this week.”
(A) They cite it as the “sixth-lowest”, meaning basically nothing, meaning it has been even lower six times in the record that goes back a mere few decades, not the properly relevant thousands of years that would establish likely limits on natural cycles and random variability.
(B) They dishonestly use the word “shrank” to refer to 2014 ice, which in 2014 in fact *surged* in area this year and last, around 40% compared to 2013 and 60% compared to 2012. That is not behavior that may honestly be called a shrinkage.
Look at the current big black line of Arctic ice area here, compared to the other lines going back to 2005. Now please admit that the article you are citing is lying, merely playing word games. The 2014 plot follows the highest years, representing a huge surge in ice area over the last two years, but the article you cite refers to that surge as “shrunk to.”
It’s *always* like this when I spend time debating climate alarm. The rabbit hole is quite deep. How is it you didn’t take the time to avoid embarrassing yourself like this?
Cool story, bro! So your old school chum also believes global warming isn’t real? Then you have company among the 2% of scientists around the world who are climate change skeptics. Just like the 2% of historians who deny the Holocaust. Just like the 2% of biologists who favor creationism over evolution.
The Time article continues:
“For demonstrator Favianna Rodriguez, climate change is inextricable from social issues like feminism and immigration policy. To protest a “culture of hypersexuality,” she marched topless, with yellow butterfly stickers over each nipple.”
https://time.com/3415162/peoples-climate-march-new-york-manhattan-demonstration/
This brings to mind the steamy sex novel written by the UN’s head of the IPCC, about, you guessed it, a spiritually enlightened Gaia guru:
“I haven’t yet reached the stage of wanting to make love to a buffalo. Frankly, every time she reminded me that I should shower her with kisses, I felt like showering her with pisses. I would have invited all of you to join in and help out.”
“As soon as the act was over, she rushed to the bathroom and spent twenty minutes douching herself thoroughly.”
“She merely said that she kept small pieces of sponge, which she promptly inserted whenever she and Amar were ready to make love.”
“Even though the deity before which he stood was shaped so authentically like the vagina, he no longer questioned why people coming here to worship and to pay homage did not feel embarrassed. So true to life was the whole construct and ambience of the stone carving depicting the vagina that it was kept constantly moist by the waters of a permanent underground spring.”
“She held back nothing, telling him about Jolly’s sexual perversion.”
– Rajendra Pachauri (Return to Almora, 2010)
Today a Time magazine “journalist” quotes a medical doctor:
“Carbon pollution directly results in asthma, heart disease and cancer,” said Dr. Steve Auerbach, a New York City pediatrician who also marched in his lab coat. “From a micro and macro point of view, climate change is a global health issue.”
I mean, how do these protesters, Time’s readers, not rebel against such quackery? Yes, carbon *soot* pollution does these bad things. But that’s so *obviously* not what carbon dioxide does, the primary engine of life on our now delightfully greening planet. Double digit boosts in crop yields are the result of fossil fuel emissions. James Hansen admitted to it in his very last publication out of NASA, adding nitrogen oxides to the happy biosphere mix:
“We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems and field studies confirm a major role of nitrogen deposition, working in concert with CO2 fertilization, in causing a large increase in net primary productivity of temperate and boreal forests.”
If a bunch of neurotics avoid therapy by forming a doomsday cult and attempt to instigate a new inquisition towards non-believers in their bizarre fantasies, do voters appreciate them? Ask Occupy Wall Street, who could barely find jurors who didn’t hate them when they were arrested for attacking the police on camera.
I’m afraid you don’t know what you are talking about on many levels.
(A) You are using a name called Reynolds Wrap, suggesting you are not a reasonable, rational player, but just a meme spewing propaganda parrot.
(B) The chemists I know don’t take climate “science” seriously, in the same bemused way they scoff at other soft sciences like sociology or economics as they keep busy delving into actually helping people by doing rigorous hard science. They detest environmentalism since it’s based on junk science studies, most of the time a scare is introduced, with the debatable exception of the seemingly valid ozone layer scare. No working academic outside of climatology wants to be attacked and defunded by speaking out about climate, any more than they would venture to be attacked for trying to reform over politicized sociology or anthropology.
(C) Science is the singular human endeavor that defines itself by the very rejection of the very notion of consensus, the motto of the oldest scientific body, The Royal Society, being “Nullius in verba” (“Take nobody’s word for it”), which Richard Feynman expressed as, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Claims of consensus are profoundly anti-scientific. An analogous consensus happened in nutritional “science” in which the Michael Mann of his day, Ancel Keys, crafted a single bullet theory of heart disease that demonized fats and cholesterol, resulting in a tragically diabetes, obesity and heart disease *promoting* upside down Food Pyramid. Today’s equivalent is the carbon footprint counter that calls for artificial energy rationing, with no admission of the potentially genocidal nature of such rationing.
(D) Given that proven fraud (see above hockey stick exposure which is merely the most visible tip of the iceberg) is at the very core of climate “science,” is it any surprise that the 97% consensus claim itself is a brazen fraud? The latest update of it, which was plugged by the Obama Twitter account, has now been multiple peer review paper debunked, and is likely to be investigated for fraud, which you can read about expressed by a professional research psychologist familiar with such surveys, who laments in astonished fashion just how gravely corrupt the study really was, a study that upon reinvestigation reversed the consensus to a tiny minority of published papers:
https://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
“97%” has become a bit of a meme over the past year. I predict that it will in the coming years become a meme of a different sort. “97%” will be the meme for scientific fraud and deception, for the assertion of overwhelming consensus where the reality is not nearly so simple or untextured. It may become the hashtag for every report of fraud, a compact version of “9 out of 10 dentists agree” (well, I’m abusing the definition of meme, but so does everyone else…) Because of this kind of fraud, bias, and incompetence, science is in danger of being associated with people who lie and deceive the public. Excellent. Just fantastic. Politics is eroding our scientific norms, and possibly our brains.”
(E) The trumped up consensus fails to support near zero emissions nuclear power, an outlook that calls their bluff about really believing their own careerist claims. Will you see any pro-nuclear signs at today’s walk? Of course not. These “environmentalists” are the ones *responsible* for scuttling the low emissions Atomic Age in the first place!
Astroturf alert via craigslist as for “volunteers” to hand out fliers today. Small print: $50 payment!
https://i57.tinypic.com/ilhxfc.jpg
…and thousands of boilerplate socialists:
https://twitter.com/commondreams/status/513728647648530432
…and interpretive dance troupes:
https://instagram.com/p/tODTqQlsA1/
Climate activism thy name is Narcissus:
https://twitter.com/activism_wendy/status/513773540714504192/photo/1
Salvador Dalí expressed best the sublimation of raw narcissism into enlightened logic and reason, towards a potentially real renaissance in his painting “Metamorphosis of Narcissus” where the Dionysus mates with Apollo:
https://www.derbyhotels.com/blog/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/metamorfosis-de-narciso.jpg
After the crowds dispersed, I was surprised by the amount of litter left behind on Central Park West. Seemed counter intuitive to the march.
as per usual the far left cannot execute anything well.
all for limiting climate change.
ruining a whole part of a major city for a whole day, not so much.