Yes, a politician said it!!!! Take that naysayers! This is the missing piece we've been looking for, someone in political power to take up the cause.

It appears that Sandy may have removed some of the sand that some people have been burying their heads in.

Reality? science? facts? we can't explain time or gravity, the basis of science, time and gravity change outside of our earths magnetic field, there is no solid matter, just electrons holding hands, atoms appear and disappear in space. When we accelerate atoms beyond the speed of light in Cern Switzerland they go into a realm that we don't know. Gravity is spilling in from a realm we don't know. We are a gas vapor to mirowaves. We don't understand the part vibration frequency plays but we know it's important. But everything is in a perfect balance. Spinning at 700 MPH through space at 150,000 mph around the sun and we can hang on. hmmmmm, maybe there is a higher power than us?

Could it be time to give the seashore back to the birds, fish, reptiles, make it public lands, wet lands for everyone to enjoy? If you build your home next to an airport you will have airplanes. The seashore attratcts wind, water, sunamis, earthquakes, nor-easters, thunderstorms. The water level is rising. Why not give the local Native Americans jobs with the Corp of Engineers and let them manage it. Their names are on it already. They had mobile homes when they lived their for a few thousand years before us. Duhhh

When we accelerate atoms beyond the speed of light in Cern Switzerland they go into a realm that we don't know.

Amidst all the meaningless babble this stands out.

Hint: CERN doesn't accelerate particles to greater than light speed. In fact, everything that CERN has turned up supports the science that says FTL is impossible.

Thanks for that civil response to massisoit, D.C. Sessions. I didn't realize folks who lived that far away from reality knew how to write. Every sentence of his was a new exercise in low-information nonsense.

(Reuters) - An international team of scientists said on Thursday they had recorded sub-atomic particles traveling faster than light -- a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe.

Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the researchers, told Reuters that measurements taken over three years showed neutrinos pumped from CERN near Geneva to Gran Sasso in Italy had arrived 60 nanoseconds quicker than light would have done.

"We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing," he said. "We now want colleagues to check them independently."

If confirmed, the discovery would undermine Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, which says that the speed of light is a "cosmic constant" and that nothing in the universe can travel faster.

That assertion, which has withstood over a century of testing, is one of the key elements of the so-called Standard Model of physics, which attempts to describe the way the universe and everything in it works.

The totally unexpected finding emerged from research by a physicists working on an experiment dubbed OPERA run jointly by the CERN particle research center near Geneva and the Gran Sasso Laboratory in central Italy.

A total of 15,000 beams of neutrinos -- tiny particles that pervade the cosmos -- were fired over a period of 3 years from CERN toward Gran Sasso 730 (500 miles) km away, where they were picked up by giant detectors.

Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds -- or 60 billionths of a second -- less than light beams would have taken.

"It is a tiny difference," said Ereditato, who also works at Berne University in Switzerland, "but conceptually it is incredibly important. The finding is so startling that, for the moment, everybody should be very prudent."

Ereditato declined to speculate on what it might mean if other physicists, who will be officially informed of the discovery at a meeting in CERN on Friday, found that OPERA's measurements were correct.

"I just don't want to think of the implications," he told Reuters. "We are scientists and work with what we know."

Much science-fiction literature is based on the idea that, if the light-speed barrier can be overcome, time travel might theoretically become possible.

The existence of the neutrino, an elementary sub-atomic particle with a tiny amount of mass created in radioactive decay or in nuclear reactions such as those in the Sun, was first confirmed in 1934, but it still mystifies researchers.

It can pass through most matter undetected, even over long distances, and without being affected. Millions pass through the human body every day, scientists say.

To reach Gran Sasso, the neutrinos pushed out from a special installation at CERN -- also home to the Large Hadron Collider probing the origins of the universe -- have to pass through water, air and rock.

The underground Italian laboratory, some 120 km (75 miles) to the south of Rome, is the largest of its type in the world for particle physics and cosmic research.

Around 750 scientists from 22 different countries work there, attracted by the possibility of staging experiments in its three massive halls, protected from cosmic rays by some 1,400 metres (4,200 feet) of rock overhead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922

I don't recall Einstein saying nothing could go faster than the speed of light. He said nothing with mass could go faster than the speed of light.

xxxooo

That is quite old news. They found an error in the calculations and said oops

PatP11111,

We've all heard the one about, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, if something goes faster than the speed of light, can anyone see it?

Yes, because it generates Cerenkov radiation.

(N.B. It happens because light travels slower than c when not in a vacuum.)

Actually Wall Street was closed down during the Frankenstorm, and even though they've re-opened today, I wonder how much water greeted them at the door or was in the basement.....Just saying they might not be so willing to squash that conversation..

You know a lot of those rich overloads have beach front property..

You know a lot of those rich overloads have beach front property..

.. in the Poconos.

Well, Sandy proved one thing. A rising tide really does lift all boats! And scatters them all over Long Island.

Continue to live with your head up in that dark passageway, Republican dumbass.

BTW - Samuel Adams, a notorious smart person, wants his name back.

Whether it's caused by man (which most rational people believe it is) or caused by nature, Cuomo is suggesting that it's happening and that we need to plan for it. Republicans want to ignore it. Which plan is better?

Samuel, Good discussion, but you will unfortunately find people on here can not discuss, they can only name call, make up names they think are funny, dismiss you, and promote their own agenda. They believe what is told them, no questions asked. There are no free thinkers amongst them, they are pre-programmed robots.

And of course, we see the usual whining, narcissistic self-pity from the trolls. Those on the right fully expect to be able to lie to your fact and have you accept it even though you know they are lying and they know you know they are lying.

Point made Samuel. Note the usage of troll.....lolol

Scientists believe that climatic changes might be responsible for
most of the extinction of dinosaurs. There is evidence that shows the temperature dropped at the end of the Mesozoic and the sea levels fell. Such a sudden change in temperature might have affected the growth of plants which were at the root of
the dinosaur's food chain.

Hmmmm...perhaps the dinosaurs were driving their cars too much....or not recycling

.....pasco how exactly do you think the dinosaurs died out?

I honestly have no idea. i can only read what the scientits say. It seems they do not no either, so it is all conjecture.

This is a sublect that I have read intensivly about. When the question of global warming came about. I wondered what happened to the dinosaurs? Could it have been from the warming of the earth? how much power do we actually have to be able to warm up the atmosphere? Is it man made or nature? I am still not sure. There are those who say that an asteroid caused the dinosaurs to disappear. Then there are those that say the fossil dates preclude the meteor. I justt find it fascinating that whole classes of species could just die out.

I honestly have no idea. i can only read what the scientits say. It seems they do not no either, so it is all conjecture.

...scientists have been pretty clear as to what caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. You say "scientists are now saying global climate change may have caused the dinosaurs to go extinct." Scientists have been saying that since before I was born and I'm middle-aged. There isn't anything new about global climate change causing dinosaurs to go extinct. What happened, however, to capitulate the climate change? Because you're leaving out that part of the story.

So I'll ask again: how exactly do you think the dinosaurs went extinct?

LOLOLOL!!! Pasco doesn't know why the dinosaurs died out but he is sure it was because of "global warming". WHY OH WHY do these trolls INSIST on coming onto this blog and blathering when they don't even know WHAT they are talking about?

Hint, Pasco, go look up dinosaur extintion on google. Pssst, it has something to do with finding iridium......

Then go look up an AUTHENTIC source on global warming.....

Who can, with 100% certainty, say whether global warming is man-made or natural? There are about 7 billion people on the Earth with most of them using fossil fuels and emitting green-house gases. In addition, we know that the polar ice is melting at a faster rate than has previously been observed. Glaciers are melting at a fast rate and many, such as the ones in Glacier National Park, will likely disappear in the near future. This melting is naturally making our oceans rise. One of the things that we do know is that nature will endure or survive, but whether mankind is part of the survival is unknown. Can we afford to take a chance and do nothing until it's too late? There are many actions that we could take to improve the quality of our atmosphere, and these things will reduce greenhouse gases that are known to contribute to global warming. While a concensus may never be reached, there should be enough reasonable and responsible people willing to take action to improve our atmosphere. To reiterate, nature will survive. Will man take the necessary steps to be part of that survival?

Once...,

Those on the right have no interest in authentic sources. They have obviously decided that climate change is a "liberal" issue, so they will pig-headedly dismiss it or deny it no matter what disasters might ensue.

Climate change is caused by nature. Humans accelerate it by pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Most paleontologists think the dinosaurs were on their way out to begin with. There were a number of things happening that, combined, were going to end their reign. The meteor was most likely the "coup-de-grace" that pushed them over the edge.

Sorry, I am "old fashioned" and prefer the library over google. If you can point me to a source that is definitive on this I would glasly read it. All I have found is conjecture. Everything is preceded by theory. And I am sorry if there are theories out there that do not jive with what you consider "fact".

Oh heavens no!!! God forbids that. Seriously that would be terrifying to get any republican let alone Rush to talk about, gasp, science.

I would actually LIKE to hear Limbaugh try and talk about Science. It would be like hearing small children talk about sex. Lots of made up facts and misunderstood concepts.

Now, now . . . don't exaggerate. Rush isn't against all science. He's actually quite fond of chemistry.

PLEASE don't ever mention Rush and Sex in the same sentence. I'm eating here. And I'm sure his knowledge of sex and climate change is equally minuscule. As minuscule as his ....threw up in my mouth a little there.

Well actually it will be the insurance and mortgage companies that put a stop to the Republican governors foolishness .Anyone who has lived near a flood zone knows your rates can triple if you are in a flood zone . The ones marked 100 year , 500 year would cost less but that's when they are anticipated on that schedule. When you have 100 year events happening every few years.....you are forced to accept the actuarial result.

No one will be able to afford the insurance on the coast ...except for the 1%

No one will be able to afford the insurance on the coast ...except for the 1%

Which gets rid of the riff-raff. After the slums are cleared out, it will make much nicer property for the people who really count.

That leaves you out.

Uber rich like the Kennedy's?

No, uber rich like Cline, Reyes, Hildebrand, McNair, Rennert, Catsimatidis, Scaife, Rees-Jones, Wexner, Bacon-Moore, Tepper, Rowan, Perenchio, Kovner, Zell, Tudor-Jones...

Don't recognize these names? You probably won't recognize many of the companies that have made them billionaires either. These are Mitt Romney's billionaire backers, this list is all men, all white, all roughly his age.

There were more on this list, go see for yourself. These are The Uber-rich, and this is the election they're trying to buy via the Republican nominee they already did.

Ah, the jealousy of those that have more than we do.........

I've noticed how many people have this perverse need to grovel at the feet of blood-sucking parasites like RobMe. Those people had better hope they are not still alive when the American version of the French Revolution or Russian Revolution happens.

Why do you assume that people are jealous pasco?

Cartoonthenews!: i can only assume it's that little thing called projection.

TCinLA I call these mainly southern, red states Dumbfukistan.

Here in 2010, in PA, we were buried under two feet of snow in Feb

Here in 1988, in PA, we were buried under two feet of snow in Feb

Here in 1901, in PA, we were buried under two feet of snow in Feb

Here in 1842, in PA, we were buried under two feet of snow in Feb

Here in 1682, in PA, we were buried under two feet of snow in Feb

Here in 1493, in PA, we were buried under two feet of snow in Feb

Oh, a flat Earther! Hi.!! Walt!

You're a damn fool if you believe there's no climate change. Check the scientific data.

If you can read.

Why did Al Gore switch from global warming to climate change?

Could it be because there is no global warming and he still has huge financial investments that will go under because there is no such thing as global warming?

Naaaaah! That couldn't be it.

Right, that's not it, Walt. Scientists (real ones) always called it climate change, not global warming. It causes severe snow storms as well, and all kinds of anomalous weather patterns and changes world wide.

Global warming is part of that. The planet IS warming and the oceans HAVE risen. Whole island populations have been put under water already.

I've read the books on the "Little ice" age, and while that was interesting and relevant, that is not linked to current climate change.

Yes, I know the Earth was once a giant snowball. It is not static, obviously. I am a weather junkie, and probably know more than most lay people. Clearly CO2 emissions cause or contribute to the greenhouse effect. That is a scientific fact. Other factors also contribute, methane being one.

Ugh not exactly India. Global Climate Change as a title was introduced by Frank Luntz, a right wing linguist who gets paid to coin phrases that easily stick into people's minds. He's responsible for the term neoconservative too as well as many other titles that we use when discussing politics. Another one he's responsible for (that he actually ordered conservatives to follow suit on during an interview he gave on Fox News) was to stop referring to "capitalism" because Americans now have a negative view of capitalism. Instead, he said, refer to "free enterprise." And if you'll notice ever since he gave that speech on Fox you have not heard a conservative politician or pundit use the term "capitalism." Mitt Romney, for instance, regularly used the term capitalism up until Luntz gave that speech and then immediately changed tune to using free enterprise. Now the president and Biden are using the term as well.

The manipulation of language use doesn't suggest that global warming isn't real, it just suggests the power of the language we use to discuss such concepts. The irony- in this case- is that using the term global climate change actually conveys the concept of global warming better than the initial title. Why? Because people like Walt here try to employ strawman literalism when dealing with the title thinking that if they can prove snow exists somewhere in the world it will therefore debunk the theory. This is, of course, not the way it works.

So why has Al Gore switched from using global warming to global climate change? For the exact same reason that Mitt Romney has switched from using capitalism to free enterprise. These meaningless titles do not change the reality of the thing they are talking about, but they DO have a tendency to seduce those who are more easily manipulated.

cartoonthe news, #10.5 Thank you for clarifying that for me. I stand corrected and always appreciate good information. At least it does not change the fact that both global warming and climate change are quite real. I have read articles that say we could see the oceans rise by 6 ft. by the latter part of this century. My poor grandchildren! I hope there will be some bipartisan help to address this issue by then!

Perhaps Frank Luntz can think up a word to describe a man like Romney who lies and then swears to it! I'd use my favourite word, but could get banned if I did. I will say he is probably a sociopath. He's not doing a very good job of mimicking human emotion, though.

I must say I find Christie appealing, but disagree with his policies.

Well global climate change and global warming are technically the same thing unless you're taking the titles literally. The reason why Luntz made this change is because climates do have a tendency to change over time or sometimes at random. So, for instance, certain places may become more arid or more wet over several decades. By using the term global climate change Luntz was attempting to add to this Republican denialism by creating ambiguity as to what is really happening. The problem is I personally think it back-fired because now people realize that when you say climate change you're not necessarily implying that the effects of something will be that of warmer weather. Some places will get more dry, some more wet, some colder, some hotter. All of it is due to a gradual warming of the Earth, but that doesn't mean that the individual (read regional) effect you and I are going to experience is that of warming weather (although yes that will happen in some areas especially if they are closer to the equator).

All it's going to take to dramatically change the human race into the future is 6 degrees. That's it. That's what we're talking about. 6 degrees can change the world- in fact I believe there's a documentary out by that very title.

We've already seen the Earth heat up by 1 degree and the estimate is if we go up by another degree that's when the flooding you're referring to will happen.

Even if mankind isn't the cause we should still be trying our damndest to prepare for this eventuality. That's the part that probably annoys me the most about the Republican Party. Ok you don't believe it's man made? Fine. But what the hell does that have to do with us preparing for the eventuality? Republicans never want to discuss that portion of the conversation.

#10.7 Cartoonthenews,

Quite so. Republicans never seem to want to address the issues which are truly relevant to our lives: climate change, world hunger, poverty, war for profit, protecting the environment, making our food supply safe (and edible!).

My husband and I planted an organic garden this year and had actual TOMATOES! LOL They were wonderful.

I do not understand this mindset, and never will, I find it so abysmally ignorant. Their ignorance effects our lives. We need intelligent governing.

If Romney wins, I believe we will virtually erase the 20th century. How depressing is that...

6 degrees. My God. Some say these changes can come rather quickly, too.

I have an Aunt who is 92 yrs. old, stranded in her Toms River, NJ, home, with no power, and no way out. This is a terrible tragedy. Terrible and Apocalyptic.

Christie has certainly made responding to the immediate needs a priority. But his effusive praise of Obama is telling - he obviously expects Romney to lose and is positioning himself to run in 2016 as a "moderate" bi-partisan kind of guy.

During Katrina the Democrat mayor of NO and the democrat governor of Louisiana told Bush to stay away. "We don't need no 'publican preznit down here"............the rest is history!!!!

Republican leaders are there when they're needed.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What parallel universe do you live in?!

"We don't need no 'publican preznit down here"............the rest is history!!!!

.....this never happened....

Yes it did.

We all know how useless Bush was. Ask any democrat. A democrat governor would rather see a levee break than as a 'pub for help.....it just wouldn't be liberal...now would it?

India LeCarre@#11.1

I haven't heard from my family in NJ, but they supposedly aren't that close to the devastation there. We have one family member that is trying to find information about them so we don't tie up all the phone lines that are most likely busy or out of service. I also have lost contact with my family in NYC. I hope things go well for your aunt as well as with my family.

it's not surprising that some on the gulf coast might not trust FEMA after what was handed to them in the wake of katrina. and "brownie" is still shuckin' the same old jive. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fema-director-brownie-weighs-disaster-article-1.1195126

a responsible, experienced administrator is now in place at FEMA and the President knows that when he says "jump" they don't sit around wondering where to jump to or "what did he mean by that." they probably look at him and say "but boss, we're already in the air."

the response won't be perfect but it will be a lot better than it would have been under the previous administration. still, i await the complaints from the right starting in...3...2...1...

just waiting for cantor to demand offsetting savings for this one or he'll hold his breath again. that will, of course, be after he gets the relief money, supplies and equipment from FEMA for the good deserving folks of his district.

Yes it did.

We all know how useless Bush was. Ask any democrat. A democrat governor would rather see a levee break than as a 'pub for help.....it just wouldn't be liberal...now would it?

No it did not. You are hypothesizing about what liberals would do (not all Democrats are liberals and the then governor and mayor were not liberals, FTR) and then taking that hypothetical and retroactively applying it to New Orleans. The mayor and governor were out asking for federal help and even got into trouble for attempting to go around the Executive to try to get assistance from the federal government. Do you not remember the big congressional hearing that took place after Hurricane Katrina in which the Bush Administration was found at fault? Or has all that slipped your mind? But more importantly let's just leave it at this: provide any evidence that the mayor and governor did not actively seek federal help because they would rather their citizens die than ask a Republican for help. Otherwise you're seriously demented. Even I wouldn't say that about a Republican. I would never say that a Republican would rather see his/her citizens die than ask a Democrat or a liberal for help. That is such a shameful level of partisanship.

Bush Administration was found at fault?

Never happened. Just because a bunch of dems say Bush was at fault doesn't make it a fact.

Just remember Barry said he wasn't going to run if he screwed up his 1st term.....he's running.

Nagin ordered that hundreds of school buses be parked in 5 feet of water and not be used to evacuate residents.

Never happened. Just because a bunch of dems say Bush was at fault doesn't make it a fact.

....I made the statement that the US Congress found the Bush Administration at fault. You then reply by making 2 contradictory statements. Either the US Congress did find Bush at fault, but it's irrelevant because the congress was Democratically controlled OR the Bush Administration was never found at fault which is why your statement about Democrats is either a lie. Which one is it? For the record this was a bi-partisan review and if you call that review into question then you cannot possibly believe that Benghazi is an issue since the US Congress also investigated what happened in Benghazi. By your own logic this would mean that whatever the US Congress finds after an investigation is suspect since nothing a Republican or Democrat says is true. So congratulations: you just proved that either a. you're a hypocrite or b. Republicans are not correct about anything they claim to be true.

Just remember Barry said he wasn't going to run if he screwed up his 1st term.....he's running.

No. He said that he did not believe people would re-elect him if he did not get unemployment down below 8%. In otherwords he was predicting that his ability to get re-elected would be slim. That is called a prediction not a promise. The fact that you can't tell the difference definitely shows your bias is skewing your ability to critically evaluate information.

Nagin ordered that hundreds of school buses be parked in 5 feet of water and not be used to evacuate residents.

How does one order that buses be parked under water? This sentence doesn't make sense. What I think you are doing here is being hyperbolic and conflating multiple issues at once. Nagin ordered a city wide evacuation, but wasn't able to get all public vehicles up and running in time to meet the evacuation order. However it would not have ultimately mattered since most residents chose to stay or found another way to leave the city. Two separate issues that you're confusing as one issue.

Nagin's buses parked neatly in 5 feet of water.

They were never used.

www.windypundit.com/archives/2005/images/20050902-NolaSchoolBuses.jpg

Congress found Bush at fault for what?....Katrina???

Nagin ordered a city wide evacuation, but wasn't able to get all public vehicles up and running in time to meet the evacuation order.

Nagin ordered evacuation 18 hrs before Katrina hit.............It was too late to evacuate.

You seem to forget we were dealing with democrats.....lol

Walt, Your village is missing its idiot. Phone home.

*Slapping forehead* Walt seriously? C'mon dude. You are confusing the fact that water hit the city and flooded the city with the idea that the mayor purposely ordered that those buses not be used for the public good. I suppose when you see Hurricane Sandy pictures of private contractors who had their equipment flooded you'll say it was cause of Democrats too? That's just insane.

Nagin ordered evacuation 18 hrs before Katrina hit.............It was too late to evacuate.

......evacuation was recommended days before Katrina hit and then about 2 days before it made landfall people were mandated to evacuate. People still didn't evacuate. Even so there was only about a 5 day notice in advance that the storm was going to reach New Orleans. I think you might be confused as to the predictability patterns of weather (before you respond please read the difference between weather and climate, thanks). 18 hours is plenty of time for people to evacuate. Hell we had people evacuating only hours ahead of time in New Jersey. This is just a weird excuse.

Congress found Bush at fault for what?....Katrina???

Do you seriously not remember the whole "Bush doesn't care about black people" incident and the like? Really? An investigation was held that found that the Bush Administration botched the handling of federal assets to respond to Hurricane Katrina. I've said this 4 times now.

the mayor purposely ordered that those buses not be used

The nitwit had a week to make a decision, Katrina didn't sneak up on anyone. We all watched it cross the Atlantic from Africa.

People still didn't evacuate

That's correct...........Bush threatened to kill anyone that evacuated.

18 hours is plenty of time for people to evacuate.

They could have hopped on a bus...HUH????

The best part of the Katrina story is that 400,000 people left because New Orleans is below sea level and this WILL happen again.

200,000 of the best minds in liberaland.......MOVED BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Walt, You are not worth responding to; you make no sense. We will no longer confuse you with facts.

For the record, I am not a liberal. I was a Jon Huntsman supporter when this began. Now Obama has my full, even financial, support. Obama is a centrist Democrat and a very intelligent, moral man; a fine human being. I believe he has done the best job possible with the GOP obstructionists he had to deal with from day one.

I have no patience for nonsense. You are on ignore.

You know I can almost see his handlers in the quiet rooms scheming for the last 24 hours on how to respond to Mitt's actual statements.

What a bunch of lame ass operatives .

seriously? that's the best you can do after thinking about it for a day. Man there are going to be some fun tell all books after he loses

Someone alert the trolls! No longer defend Mitt defunding FEMA, reverse and defend Mitt defending FEMA!

Ah, you know what will come from the trolls: "Romney NEVER SAID he would get rid of FEMA or federal disaster relief!" They have SUCH SHORT memories!!! Those that can think are seasick from all of Romney's neck-snapping issue changes and have stopped posting. We mostly get the dregs now!

NeedMoreCoffee:they'll just walk-it-back in the morning.

they've walked-it-back so many times that they are wearing out the rug, and my patience.

Temporary me, #12.4

Romnesia, stage 4. That's my diagnosis. Call me Dr. Le Carre.

The GOP is right in the really long run. The earth has warmed and cooled many times over its existence. At one point the entire world was an ice cube. At other times the world was covered with hot house rainforests generating enough O2 to allow dinosaurs to exist. For the last several million years ice ages have come and gone. The Sahara has in cycles been a lush green plain and a giant hot desert.

The evidence of "man made" global warming, however, is overwhelming. For the last few hundred years we have been treating the earth like a 10th grade science experiment and we are now getting the expected results.

Now, will the unregulated release of CO2 destroy the earth? NO. The earth will abide. But it is a safe bet that mankind will be in a world of hurt. So will a lot of other animals. I don't worry about the national debt. Our descendants will be too busy trying to survive the rising oceans and changing climate to care about paying off the national debt. It won't be paid. At some point America will go bankrupt and nobody will notice or care.

If man is not contributing to environmental effects then maybe it was a mistake to ban those ozone depleting chemicals.

The GOP does not deny Global Warming, They deny "Man Made" Global Warming.

Okay. And here, to deny the deniers claim that GOP deniers do not deny global warming is the loudest national GOP spokesperson on the realities of climate change, Rush Limbaugh:

"We know global warming is a hoax, and we know that elements of NASA have been part of it. And we know that the regime runs NASA. We know that the regime has shut down the shuttle — no more manned space flights, we know that the regime was going to turn NASA itself over to Muslim outreach."

Just because they deny it, doesn't make it factual... The very same people who tell us there have been multiple climate changes over the billions of years the Earth has existed are the same ones telling us that humans are having a direct affect on the current climate... It may well be a natural phenomenon, with the added accelerating element of human interaction...

Then again, some folks think the Earth is only 6000 years old... They think all this stuff is bogus...

And about the last (current) Ice Age... One of it's features was mass extinctions...

Just saying...

Steve,

Your comments are like saying that the destruction of the delta didn't contribute to the hurricane damage in New Orleans, or that barrier islands have no importance.

You believe whatever you NEED to believe to make yourself feel warm and cozy at night, but your grandchildren and great grandchildren won't thank you for your ignorance!!

Our great grandchildren are bankrupt. They will just have to get used to being miserable too.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. People cannot be bankrupt before they even exist. Sigh. Also this is not how debt and deficits work

#13.7 I have given up confusing Walt with facts or logic. He's on ignore. My patience ran out.

I leave him to you (slapping your forehead). LOL Don't give yourself a headache!

Walt,

Maybe they can breathe and eat all that money you are going to save them by ignoring environmental issues.

Climate change/global warming is here. That is a fact. Why it is occurring may be debatable, but the fact is the planet is warming and the oceans are rising. If we do not adapt, we will not survive, at least not as a viable civilization.

We simply cannot continue to live on little slips of sand on the edge of the sea so that we can bask in the sun and play in the water in the summer. Those of us who live in the mountains where it often snows (I live in Colorado) need to be prepared to survive 18 to 48 inches of snow. Just because it has not happened in the recent past does not mean it will not happen in the future.

What Cuomo and the Gov. of Conn. are trying to get people to face is that things are not going to be the way they were. We have to change because the climate is changing. Those who deny the facts are usually those who have a vested interest in the status quo and do not want to lose any of their power and riches. The little people who have been living in their beach paradise do not want to admit it either. The facts are not always pretty but that does not make them any less the way things really are.

how did that cartoon go...

but... but... what if we make it a better environment with cleaner water and air you can breathe and it turns out we were wrong about climate change?

Well all that clean air and water will be a complete waste, won't it? Won't we feel stupid. And our children will never forgive us.

Hey Chris, good to see you here on the old format we loved so well. Clean water and air....who needs it! Right! I think the GOP's motto should be "Business before breathing!"

If anybody doubts how Romney would govern, check out the history of the Koch brothers. They bought him.

The one who pays the piper calls the tune.

Tom51, I know what you mean. People tend to make my head hurt when they say things that contradict science. Their ignorance may be bliss for them, but the rest of us will suffer from it in the end.

Oh, where did I put the aspirin......??

Hi, there. Climate Change Extremist here.

Ah, yes. Radical, unproven mitigation programs like forestalling new construction in high tide zones. Like replacing century-old water and power viaducts with infrastructure that can withstand weather, water, and seismic stresses. Like pricing mineral extraction with *all* its attendant costs, those infamous externalities that are cynically dropped into the lap of local governments or our poorest fellow citizens -- or into the bowels of my beloved Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, we have spent the past several centuries running wild over and through the earth, letting poorer local or indigenous peoples carry the real, ugly costs of ruining earth, water, and air. Only it isn't just they who are seeing the costs now, is it? It's all of us.

I love this blindness on the behalf of gilded age capitalists: yes, when my daddy smoked, he alone (well, excepting Medicare and BC/BS) suffered the results in his two lung cancers. But when BP screws with the Gulf, millions pay. When pipelines full of tar sands rupture, drinking water is poisoned for decades. When Union Carbide saved a few millions by letting their equipment deteriorate, Bhopal happened.

Moral: there are real costs to the damage we've done. Some are environmental, some are psychological, some cost human lives, and most involve REAL MONEY. I'm doing my best to pay that forward, but I cannot believe there are folks who insist that there are no such costs! Wake up!

Wow, the ancient Incas built Machu Picchu at 8000 ft. in the Andes in Peru in the 15th century. Building from carved granite stones to perfectly fit with the next stone, keeping in mind the torrential rains would erode and undermine the structure. They built a terrace structure with drainage to retain the water to be used, not leave it to be wasted and destroy. They created a canal at a 3 degree fall to bring mountain spring water to the buildings for use by about 1000 people living and farming corn there. The ancient Incas were able to use the resources around them in a way that was not destructive and harmful to the earth and others below or around them.

We have the capability to use the natural resources and have things we want and need without destroying everything around us. I have to listen to scientists that the CO2 is having a negative effect. We can figure out in the 21st century how to maintain our environment. Just as the 15th century Incas knew torrential rains would have negative effects on the massive structure the Incas built. They were able to do it and live there until Spain brought small pox and conquered the Incas that they left Muchu Picchu.

Hmm another documentary by NOVA on PBS, which would be defunded by Rmoney. It's on Hulu, but I watched it on my TV.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/258121

Yes, we have alternatives that are sustainable and we can make commercial products here involving these products and services. Solar panels, wire, batteries, turbines, installations. The homes, office buildings, distribution centers can have solar panels and wind turbines, even exportation of these things. I saw a major local grocery chain (Safeway) distribution center recently installed 2 large wind turbines. They invested in this as environmental sustainability (and cost management benefit).

http://tracypress.com/view/full_story/16623263/article-Tracy-companies-turn-shade-of-green

It's conservative to conserve resources and protect children from harm.

http://csrsite.safeway.com/planet/resource-conservation/

My father died from COPD. We know children exposed to pollution are even more at risk. So why would we insist on using polluting, contaminating energy, when we have domestic, renewable alternatives that can be turned into profitable business?

The Incas figured it out in the 1400s, they made a modern-ish self sustaining farming community at nearly 8k ft., a mountain. Yes, they made roads and traveled, too.

We cannot keep putting off the need to detach from finite, dirty energies controlled by foreign countries and science says is having drastic effects on our planet.

http://www.futurecars.com/articles/opec4.html

I watched that Nova program too last evening. I find it ironic that Nova is funded by the David Koch foundation.

I like all your other suggestions. Rachel suggested Tuesday night that we bury all the power lines. I think putting solar panels and wind chargers on all or most of the houses would be a better investment. The would have to be built to withstand 90 to 120 mph winds. Of couse all the utility companies and the coal, oil, and natural gas companies would lose money.

The utility companies would bill cities and counties for doing the work of burying the cables and such. In times such as this, they only restore things, not improve. Any changes would take time to get permits, locate underground pipes in the way, etc. So yeah, it would be nice if they would do that, but there would be great cost involved. Maybe some day?

Yeah, sometimes the conservatives surprise me. I know Bob Lutz is for electric cars, he rebuts his (fellow conservative) critics with a conservative argument. Energy security (it is also good to conserve what oil we have).

I mentioned before that these coal oil and natural gas companies could branch out into the solar and wind and keep making money. Instead of investing in dynamite and drilling equipment, start placing whatever makes most sense on their current lands (wind or solar) and employ people, sell to energy companies or their own community, even.

The tracking and mining costs money to produce product, just move it over toward sustainable, cleaner sources. Branch out. It's the 21st century.

I put solar panels on my house right after the rolling blackouts supply manipulation and price gouging immediately after deregulation occurred.It also feels good to know I could buy an electric car later and hardly ever buy any gas. We still use natural gas for heat in winter, though.

The unique nature of a cold front mixing with hot weather coming to the shoreline hasn't happened since the 1800's. It is certainly a sign of a differing weather pattern, but you are correct that as a single event is meaningless. Look at our weather patterns over the past 10 years or even the past 20 years though together. What you see is the weather becoming less predictable and more volatile in areas where humans live. That should tell us that something is happening.

If the earth spins at an angle of 23.4 degrees and the ice caps melt, glaciers melting, would increase the sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pzZcNjjQ3c

That severe drought made the price of corn skyrocket. Makes me wish I had planted some this summer.

It seems logical that evaporation would create more precipitation and possibly change the severity of storms and even possibly change the trajectory of the storm due to the patterns of wind circulation in relation to cold and warm air.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hurricanescience.org/images/hss/NatSnowandIceDataCen_global_circulation.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.hurricanescience.org/science/science/hurricanemovement/&h=395&w=412&sz=10&tbnid=3_YOYVJWcLXydM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=87&zoom=1&usg=__BgFvXu-jYVkjiP4UaueXAThVuek=&docid=UQerco3pxXCz7M&sa=X&ei=ks2RUIDTE4uuqwH894CACg&ved=0CEcQ9QEwBg&dur=7234

Hey I'm no scientist or climatologist, but it's interesting to think about.

It's not the first hurricane to hit the area, but this one sure did pack a massive punch.

My best wishes to those folks affected.

This is a good one too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtRwm6WWLbY&feature=related

sandyc954,

I just read a very good book called THE AGE OF MIRACLES, by Karen Thompson Walker. I'll bet you'd like it. It really gives one pause. It is science fiction; the rotation of the Earth has begun to slow down. In the book, the narrator is a young girl, and it talks about how this change effects her and her family and friends. I really liked it.

My cat thinks your cat is cute, BTW.

Climate change has changed the jet stream so that it does not push the storms out to sea. One of the storm experts who forcasted this storm said that just the other day.

India...I agree that the recent weather has been strange...but we have had strange weather in the past as well.....there is so much data that defends both sides of the coin....I don't have the answer....for sure...I remember when scientists claimed we were headed to a global freeze...so I don't have a lot of trust in the scientists...

I think we need to do what we can to keep our environment as clean as possible while keeping our economy and our citizens working...

Also, I wanted to tell you that I read your post about your Dad being a Mason...there was a comment that Masons are Devil worshipers or something like that......I assure you that Mason's are not Devil Worshipers.....

Your father was a member of a Fraternity...I am also a member of that Fraternity and have so many good friends that are also members....we help each other out and we help out our community.....

I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you all these things....but I don't think it hurts for others to hear it.....

Your Friend,

TAP

there is so much data that defends both sides of the coin

No, not really. There are a lot of websites out there that provide skepticism towards claims made by scientists, but these usually aren't in-depth debunkings or counter-studies. They are usually people sitting on a blogwebsite claiming that X can't be possible because of his or her layman's understanding of science. I have yet to see credible information by a scientist that actually disproves global warming and I have only read a handful of books by scientists claiming to disprove man made global warming. Their evidence, of course, uses information that is grossly outdated and they do not often counter claims made by those reporting on global warming OR conduct counter research, but rather express why they individually don't believe it. The two aren't necessarily the same. Anecdotal evidence is important as part of a greater narrative, but only if it's accompanied by empirical evidence. In the absence? It's just bull

I remember when scientists claimed we were headed to a global freeze...so I don't have a lot of trust in the scientists

Strawman literalism strikes again! You assume that us heading to a global freeze is different than global warming NOT on the basis of the science, but on the basis of your misunderstanding of the title.

So global warming is the same a global freeze?....Please elaborate...thanks.

I do understand that there are some that claim we are destabilizing the climate and that we could cause a global freeze...but when I referred to scientist claiming a global freeze...they were not predicting global warming first....

There has been some speculation that global warming could lead to another ice age because the sudden melting of the ice sheets off Newfoundland could dilute the salinaty of the ocean causing a disruption of what scientists call the conveyor belt. It has been a while since I read about this theory, I think in Discover Magazine, so I cannot explain it in detail, but it has to do with cold salt water sinking faster than cold fresh water.

Americans rejected the metric system decades ago when some forces tried to jam it down our throats. Metric is for Europeans.

Pig-headed nationalism keeps metric from becoming standard in the US.

TAP #21.1 Thanks for the response, especially regarding my late father. I don't know where people get the idea that Masons are devil worshipers. That's absurd. Now as to what my father actually worshiped, I will tell you what my mother always thought he worshiped: His golf clubs.

Now, maybe there were devils on the golf course, but I never saw one. LOL

I am truly astonished at how close the race is in Ohio! Obama worked so hard for the people of Ohio, and Romney's policies would hurt Ohio. It is such a slap in the face to the president that anyone in Ohio would consider voting for a venture Capitalist. They don't create jobs. They create wealth for themselves and their investors. Often it is at the expense of the workers. Ohio is a perfect example of that! Look at Freeport! Romney got wealthy on that! Ohio lost jobs.

Romney then put more money in his offshore bank accounts, free of Uncle Sam's taxation. How much does he care about a revenue starved country like the one he wants to govern? Is this the act of a man who loves his country?