BN You are correct
But we should use it by it's other name (it sounds better)
The UN Agenda 21 is also called "Sustainable" and "Smart Growth"
It sounds better.
In New Jersey it is called "Sustainable New Jersey"

bayboat
Christie ELIMINATED the Office of Climate Change
Good for Christie a wise thing to do.

Christie is the best thing that ever happened to the DEP. Those jackasses were out harrasing local municipalities who did not inform the DEP that they were stockpiling fallen trees at temporary locations. It was a state of emergency and they want local government to have to worry about informing the DEP on top of all the real concerns that local governments have to worry about post Sandy. I hope Christies eliminates the DEP.

Then I suggest you call it something else because it is not a "local voice".

Jack , There is such a thing as climate chang ,it occurs every year my trees lose their leves and my grass stops growing ...then in 6 mos my trees start to grow leaves again as does my grass ....watch for it ,believe me it will happen

An entire world summit disagrees with you. Should we take your word over the scientific community from all over the world? Stop buying Chinese crap from Walmart and adding more hot air to the planet lol.

10 hottest years on record (which is false, BTW) out of 5,000 years of recorded human history, 100,000 years of human history, and 4,600,000,000 years of earth history. So we're supposed to be convinced by your incorrect statement of 10 hottest yrs on record (which EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE IT WOULD BE STATISTICALLY MEANINGLESS.)

You, frank rizzo, are not very bright, are you. Taxes go up lately? (The answer is yes, genius)

I'd rather be a tea-bagger than have your brain which is incapable of doing anything but play follow the leader

Stinki... the thing is pretty much everyone agrees there is climate change, the argument is what is the cause. And the problem is the anti intellectual movement in this country... Its ok to say like Rubio that the earth is 6000 years old cause it says so in the bible... Climate change is no big deal... Climate change is just a ruse by the UN to take power from the US etc etc etc.. this is way the Republican party look like an out of touch bunch corporate shills. that is FR's point. so you can disagree with the it being the hottest decade or whatever, but climate change is real. You either get on board, or you just join the ignorant minority that deny reality.

Wow, a science community verifying the existence of the science that they are trying to continue to study.

Can anyone say "conflict of interest?"

Stinki, as much I want to disagree with you, what truly spurred a debate over climate change was some UK scientists fudging or what they called predicting data. They did this to meet a deadline and continue their grant.. But in the context of NAS, they truly don't have to worry about funding per say... So yes science that is linked to a cause like say oil can or mandated deadlines can be less then stellar.

Just curious, what happened with that hubris filled prediction of a Romney landslide? I think you called PA and Ohio and Florida and a few others that didn't quite turn out that way... But you where rather adamant about it, so I have to ask.

I was dead wrong, that's what happened. Good thing I am not a pollster for a living, I;ll tell you that!! :-)

Make them reuse their tea bags.

donald. Get over yourself. Oh gee there is an article and donald read it I guess it must be true. Apparently, when you were at school supposedly becoming an engineer you failed to learn how to use logic and reason to think for yourself. Oh a thousand scientists getting PAID by the liberal environmentalist fringe agree there is global warming. I guess there must be global warming. The global warming conspiracy movement is a billion dollar global industry, that exist for no other reason than to enrich themselves.

I am sure al gore was really worried about global warming when he built his $9 million beach front mansion.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1

There is no consensus.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578100862654023702.html?KEYWORDS=global+warming
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578002500275382408.html?KEYWORDS=global+warming

Oh and thanks for pointing out the fact that nobel laureates are on the bandwagon - I believe that is the same organization that gave barry the peace prize for doing NOTHING!

Donald

you will not convince the republicon rubes
They cant deal with reality

If frankie and donny were there when prometheus sparked the first fire I am sure they would have put it out after hearing from a "scientist" that is was warming the planet.

You can and do when you shop at walmartians

Hey Tom
stand outside in July
or
you could have stood outside during Sandy in your boxer shorts screaming cycles i tellya

That is way too much logic for these people to grasp. You can fully expect them to resort to name calling now. Anyone who's taken a college Statistics 101 course should be able to grasp why global warming is at best an un-provable theory and at worst a total hoax.

Maybe because the industrial revolution only happened a few seconds ago relatively speaking. Maybe because there are over 7bn people using up the planet's resources now whereas in the early 1800s it was only 1bn. The "insignificant" data all comes from the period where humans have had the most significant affect on the planet. If you can look out on a smoggy morning and say nothing has changed, you're obviously blind.

@Petey....Naturally occuring forest fires and volcanos release more co2 and smoke and greenhouse gas in 1 year, than anything man has ever made in 10,000 years.

If co2 is causing global warming and it is so destructive and needs to be stopped so urgently, why are all the liberals and alarmists flying around th world in their jumbo jets and private jets? Look at Hollywood for example. they are are the biggest liberals spouting nonsense about global warming but all the movies have huge explosions and fires in them. The stars live in huge multiple energy wasting mansions while they fly all over the world in private jets, but then they expect us to drive electric cars and conserve energy. Same with liberal politicians.

@Pete, while that may make you feel better, it doesn't come anywhere near being relevant enough to dismiss billions of years of unrecorded information. Trying to correlate the Industrial Revolution and population growth with the unavoidable destruction of our planet is laughable at best and nowhere near science.

Nobody is saying "nothing has changed", the weather and climate change all the time and is cyclical in nature. Man just doesn't have anywhere near the necessary amount of information to understand those cycles beyond the most micro of cycles.

It is actually quite arrogant of the "climate change" community to espouse the notion that they are intelligent enough to suggest that the climate as it exists today and in the recent past is the healthiest climate for this planet. Based on what? Speculation at best....

How is this a 100 year deal? 70 years since the 40's, 50 years since the 60's, not that long since andrew, katrina, and irene. And this wasn't a particularly violent storm, just happened to change direction, two months earlier and could have been a cat. 3.

why do that its funny to watch you rubes deny it lol

Does anyone remember the Halloween Storm of 91? I was a teenager but remember it very well. Nothing compared to this storm but still caused quite a bit of damage along the coast. If you want to read about more of them
http://www.bayshorewatershed.org/bw/Insiders%20Guide/List%20of%20New%20Jersey%27s%20Most%20Notable%20Storms/

From NASA's Web site:

"How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends?

Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years."

Duplicate post...reported!

Another duplicate? Jeez this is getting old fast. Outta ammo Donnie?

Dona;, unfortunately for you, consensus is NOT science. There is just as much consensus on the opposite side of the debate but you choose to disagree with that so your consensus is "science" whereas the opposing consensus is not credible nor does it get any relevant media exposure.

How did that "coming ice age" back in the 70's work out for the climate alarmists? And what of the "next" coming ice age? http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/43321/scientists-predict-coming-ice-age/

I guess Al Gore neglected to mention those things while writing Op Eds from his house that consumes an entire electrical substation or on one of his evil private jets...

The National Academy of Sciences, at the request of Congress, considered all the competing theories for climate change as of 2010, and concluded as follows:

"The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."

Please explain why the glaciers retreated during the Wisconsin Glacial Period when there were no humans to heat up the earth.

As better explained by actual climate scientists in research materials readily available on the Internet, there have long been natural cycles of global climate change, such as glacial and inter-glacial periods. However, the relatively recent build-up of human-generated greenhouse gasses have vastly distorted the natural cycles, increasing by many times over the energy now available for extreme climate/weather events (e.g., droughts and hurricanes). Indeed, climate scientists in 2010 predicted many of the record-breaking events we are now seeing in 2012.

However, what is more salient is that the extremes are even greater -- and coming more frequently -- than prior, cruder models predicted. If anything, climate change seems to be accelerating more rapidly than conservative estimates of even a few years ago. Furthermore, according to other recent research, the correlations between CO2 and global warming -- as determined by better and more numerous global thermal monitors, as well as ice-core samples of up to 1 millon years go -- are stronger than previously thought.

In view of the foregoing, former climate-change skeptics -- those in the 3%, as it were -- have been recently becoming climate-change believers. I have seen none going the other way (although I may have missed some).

NASA absolutely agrees with the NAS findings regarding the reality of human-induced climate change and global warming, and it joins in the overwhelming consensus of 97% of the nation's scientists. Here is just one small excerpt of the SCIENCE now available through its Web site:

"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space."

See: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

The sun is even hotter than the air coming out of Al Gore.

Al Gore is absolutely irrelevant to actual climate scientists, as opposed to posters here who seem to be obsessed with him for some reason. I have read many climate-science papers; none cited Al Gore.

I voted for Gary Johnson, and you're a paid leftist shill. Be gone.

Pretender, I understand your frustration. However, just as there will always be holocaust and moon-landing deniers, there will be climate-change deniers. Unfortunately, they tend to be more vocal -- at least in anonymous venues such as Patch -- than the vast majority of the population that are more sensible.

By the way, even Governor Romney -- to his credit -- acknowledged human-induced climate change late this summer. He also advocated "robust" increases in government and private spending for research regarding the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions.

"Anonymous" says you, faceless and full nameless "Donald". And why did Romney "acknowledge" Climate Change? Because he took a populist position on it that the media would have crucified him on otherwise and understands that most folks "buy into" the constant propagandized onslaught of "Going Green" or is it "Global Warming" or is it "Global Climate Change" this week?

Green is the new "Red", you Eco-Marxist nanny state know it alls call your "opinions" science backed by others that have credentials but still espouse opinions. YOUR SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!!!! Nor can the science on the other side of the debate because 353 years of data, most of which is loose data since instrumentation and methodology has only become significantly more advanced and stable in the last 100-150 years or so at most, is not even a pimple on a pimple on a pimple on a pimple on a pimple on a pimple of a pimple on the arse of the billions of years worth of data that existed prior.

We would all be better served by people like yourself strapping a houseplant to your pie hole to offset the incredible carbon footprint coming out of your mouth. Ponder that while coming to grips with the fact that you probably got ripped off buying that Terrapass tree you got the bumper sticker for that is slapped onto the bumper of your "gonna save the world" Prius with its toxic battery powering it along.

By the way Donald, to lump in us Climate "deniers" with holocaust deniers is such a complete and udder disrespect to the millions of Jewish people that lost their lives and their personhood during that time. A simple attempt to appeal to people's emotions instead of trying to have a rational discussion based on the common sense that you can't predict the future based on less than a millionth of a percent of the past.

Robert, so your tone has changed from what if to outrage that "YOUR SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING"... sadly science isn't opinion or owned.
There is a very interesting book by Clive Hamilton titled Requiem for a Species.http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/16/requiem-for-a-species-clive-hamilton
He explores the history of Climate change deniers, as science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change is in fact happening, and it is because of humans.
So your argument that we could not sample data from the Cretaceous period some 65 million years ago, do we know for sure that it was a meteor or dinosaur farts that caused the great extinction event? we can never be certain. What we can be certain about is what has happened in the post industrial world. and your denial defies all logic. The WSJ ran an editorial "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" with 16 scientists signing on... thing is half work for oil and gas companies... the rest are not even in the field of climate change... http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/wsj-no-need-to-panic-op-ed-prompts-heated-exchanges-leading-to-long-awaited-last-word-not-really-of-course/

These arguments are just wastes of time... have you noticed that the oil companies now tell us how green they are? multinationals do the same.. why? cause it is the future and thus profitable. You have a few hold out like the Koch's who are just shooting themselves in the foot if they too don't adapt.

@Patrick, my tone tends to change rather quickly when I am lumped in with "anonymous" deniers as well as holocaust deniers and while my capitalizing of that statement may seem like yelling it was really just to try and emphasize the point that nobody "owns" the science on this, either side of the debate and that is just fine.

While you may consider this debate a "waste of time" it is only because your side is intolerant of dissent. I would have no problem with your side of the argument if your advocates weren't busy trying to legislate it down everyone's throats by trying to determine what kinds of cars can be produced and whether or not a farmer should be taxed more when his cows fart. You side justifies that legislation because you feel my eight cylinder car is going to kill your grandchildren.

Why do oil companies profess to be "Green"? Because they realize the popular opinion has reached the tipping point and it would be "politically incorrect" to not take the populist position of being "Green". They take the position because for the time being, it is more profitable, it is marketing. I don't see any of them shutting down their oil rigs to save the planet. Are they investing in alternative fuels, I would sure hope so because eventually there is going to be the next "thing". Not because of "climate change", but because technology will eventually mature enough to consume an alternative fuel source more cost effectively than current fossil fuels.

Robert, the SCIENTIFIC community is not at all intolerant of dissent. Indeed, all the definitive reports from the NAS, the AMS, the IPCC, etc., explicitly rely on extensive peer-reviewed research and findings, including stringent and forceful debate and analysis regarding ALL competing theories and views. Nevertheless, as SCIENTISTS, after all is said and done, they have jointly and severally provided what has become a very strong consensus on the SCIENTIFIC issues within the SCIENTIFIC community regarding climate change. Given today's widely available media access, including by and to all scientists, it should not be heard that climate-change deniers have been silenced. It is just that their views have been generally rejected. Each month seems to result in yet another prominent skeptic becoming a believer.

Regarding your most recent post above, you are merging issues of scientific fact with issues of policy determination. These are two entirely different things. Because you may have strong feelings regarding very difficult policy decisions needing to be made regarding CO2 reduction, etc., (e.g., the kind of car you may/should drive) does not justify your rejection of the scientific facts (which have been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Yes, the remedies may be hard and expensive; however, that does not change the damage now occurring, and will continue to occur. How much damage we are willing to tolerate, and at what cost, involves difficult policy decisions indeed.

" I would have no problem with your side of the argument if your advocates weren't busy trying to legislate it down everyone's throats" Robert, where are the laws that are being shoved down your throat? If you lived in California you might have an argument... But for the most part green laws have failed... The only real programs by government have been incentives... Tax credits and the like, for getting less energy hungry options for our homes and transportation. No one is forcing you to take a bus, or give up the 70's era muscle car. Pacts like cap and trade seek to balance world carbon emissions... But you probably think that is stupid as well...
It is odd, I know a lot of people on the right, friends family co workers, and none of them None. Are climate change deniers... So call me silly for thinking that this is a fringe issue.

@Patrick, the laws trying to legislate it down our throats? Obama's administration has raised the minimum MPG for all car manufacturers. By 2016 (I think the year is right, but i have to admit i don't know the exact dates) cars will have to have 8-10 MPG BETTER averages than what they have now. How's THAT for ramming legislation down our throats? Who do you think will bear the cost (averaged at about $800 per car more to manufacture) of compliance? The consumer, that's who.

Improved gas mileage? Ohhh come on....800 bucks over the live of the car is nothing when you factor in gas savings... That just makes sense, and is hardly some big government program forcing you to change you style of living... It isn't like they are asking you to turm in your 84 le mans... Again another reason why the right is viewed as radical... Common sense is replaced shouting of gov't taking away of freedoms.

Yes, and in the 50's there were 3 massive Sandy-like Hurricanes in a 5 years span. Massive damage, but back then, there weren't as many yahoo's building as many mansions (and bungaloes) on the beach.

Definitely not arguing the point you're making, just the cause. Us "deniers" think it is pretty inconclusive to say it is human influence and lean more towards it being natural cycles that no scientific community can even begin to understand given how long the earth's climate has existed.

Banned in Great Britain schools that is.

Where do you think this nutcase donald keeps coming up with 97%? Do you think he is a big cornelius bennet fan?

So if 34,000 scientist are the 3% I guess donald thinks that the other 1.1 million agree with him? Do you have a list donnie?

John, virtually everything you cite has been debunked or is immaterial to the issues under discussion. And little or none has undergone extensive, scientifically recognized peer review -- a basic requirement of sound science -- as opposed to constituting mere polemics. In fact, the one Web site to which you link is primarily managed not by a scientist, but a lawyer!

Some of what you write about -- e,g., glacial/inter-glacial cycles -- has been addressed by me in previous posts in this thread, which I will not again repeat, other than to say the peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows recent extreme, unnatural acceleration -- in frequency and in strength -- of catastrophic weather-related events, highly correlated to the atmospheric accumulation of post-industrial greenhouse-gas emissions.

In any event, I certainly don't expect to change the minds of the climate-change deniers posting here. Rather, my posts -- including the links -- were intended for those silent folks who may have been reading some of this material. I guarantee we will all be hearing much more about these issues in the national discussion going forward, especially as we see increasing drought, record-breaking weather extremes, and stronger storms, as correctly predicted by the NAS and other respected scientific organizations (such as NASA) over the last decade.

Jesse, I know I have been spending too much time here when I start getting asked questions to which I already provided the answers (with links) above, such as the 97% figure. Have a Happy Thanksgiving all! I am now leaving town to join my family.

Oh, and one final thing. It is definitely time to go when the words "nutcase" and "envirowhackos" enter the conversation . . . .

Donald, I hope you're riding your bicycle to visit your family. Can't have you emitting greenhouse gasses on your trip!!

Tell you what, there is this thing called google. Answer your own question. And if you could, would you let us know where you got your PHD in climate change or other related science. Since I just have a BFA and a few masters courses under my belt, I normally defer to experts in the field of which is topical. My point being, that people doing the science tell us that it is happening ( of which there is no real debate) and that it is being exacerbated by humans... and I guess you could argue that point, but oddly the only scientists that believe that end have skin in the game. So where do you draw your hypothitis that there is a set earth temp. and how does this relate to sudden climate change and the melting of the polar ice, and the huge hole in the ozone. Just curious.

Patrick, why not just answer those two very simple questions?

its has been getting warmer every yr for the last 10 yrs 2 hurricanes in the last 2 yrs
dont let those 2 pesky facts get in the way of your magic mittens underwear

Relax. Donny or one of his tree-hugging leftist global warming cronies created an account with the same name as mine. Tells you how scared they are of the truth. It's the SUN.

You make the excellent point, Duffer, that there isn't the data to support the claim [of significant human impact on the climate] to the degree it is claimed. The onus is on those who claim it, and they resent you for reminding them of that.

Monk pretty much nailed it. If any of you climate change "Experts" had been intellectually honest enough to answer my two questions you would have been forced to answer that the data doesn't exist. Nobody knows the answer to those two questions. From there the entire theory of global warming falls apart. The honest truth is we don't even have 60 years worth of accurate climate data and you can't base any solid science on such a limited sample.

Well for one, Ocean City in 1812 was a patch of dunes... So no one would be recording weather there...
As for a constant temp of the earth, you don't understand the problem if that is your question. No one is doubting that the temp changes on this planet. But not as quickly as it has. The World Bank just released a report on the effects of climate change over the next hundred years. It isn't great news... so I really don't care if you believe it is man made or part of some earth cycle, but it is happening.... so Best now to try and address the things we can... Like making sure we have higher dunes at the Jersey Shore, making sure that places like lower Manhattan are protected from storm surge... These aren't radical ideas, its a matter of self preservation. So I really don't care about your politics on the matter, I just can't understand why your stick your head in the sand approach could even be rationalized in a state and area just hit like we where. it is really just a matter of protecting lives and property.

Patrick, we all agree that climate change is happening. What you call us "doubters" and "ignorant" is just people looking at it from their own perspective. You calling us ignorant doesn't make it so.

So yes the climate of the earth is changing. And you say that no matter what the reason, then we must do something about it.

Well some of us say that if you don't accept that man is the cause, then you really can't do much about it. That is, Mother Nature is more powerful than 7,000,000,000 humans. What if we start "cooling the planet" and then all of a sudden in 50 yrs (or maybe even 150 yrs) a massive cooling effect gets noticed. Are we going to start watching "global cooling and start rewarding CO2 emissions? Did we forget that we got a massive snowstorm here in NJ in October last year?

In addition, some of the "efforts" men make actually backfire. You know...the "well intention-ed" argument. In Oregon and California, wild fires are raging because the gov't has limited logging which thins out forests (especially dead wood.) So the government (some would say "tree huggers") in an effort to "save the environment" actually cause denser forestation which increases the likelihood of wildfires, which BY THE WAY have dramatically larger CO2 emmissions than anything man can do.

So the bottom line for us "ignorant" people is that climate change or not, one thing is for sure: GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER All they want is our TAX MONEY to SELF PERPETUATE.

So the save the taxpayer money argument means you think we should abandon the beach replenishment that costs hundreds of millions of dollars in NJ alone a year.. and not take a futuristic approach like say Holland or Japan with seawalls. Just screw New York City, cause mother nature says so... forget increased carbon emissions, cause that might mean that we pay for for gas at the pump, heaven forbid we invest in real public transit and high speed rail... and really your view is just so anti American. We build great things here. don't we? or are we now some 90's era post Eastern Block country where we don't fix what we have maybe patch it up, and just exploit whatever we can... sure it will make a few folks really rich, but sorry this isn't the Ukraine or Poland. The american Dream isn't just about grabbing as much as you can in your lifetime, its about making a great country so that you can do well, and your children can do better and so on... I'd like to be able to drive over a bridge and not worry its going to fall into a river, I'd like to be able to take a high speed train to work, through a tunnel not constructed using mules and steam. Green isn't just a buzzword for climate change it is about addressing the problems of the future responsibly. as for taxes... you already have the lowest tax rate since WW2. what more do you want

Patrick, why can't the free markets invest in high speed rail? if consumers want it for a price that can fund the building of the rail, so be it.

just because i say government is inefficient doesn't mean i am against progress. why does it have to be extremes with you?

and as for taxes and the lowest rates since WW2, that's only your view of "tax rate" and I don't buy that argument.

add in sales tax, property tax, alternative minimum tax, cell phone tax, cable bill tax, gas tax, buying a car tax, buying a home tax, license tax, registration tax, garbage fees, obamacare tax, obama tax, bush tax, clinton tax, bush tax, reagan tax, carter tax, ford tax, nixon tax, johnson tax, kennedy tax, eisenhower tax, and truman tax. That's right, while all those Presidents moved the "tax rates" up and down at their will, they always slap regulations (Agendas) and laws that take away our liberty and property by taxation. Add to that all of my previous NJ and NY governors and the laws keep coming at the expense of my pocketbook and my liberty.

So don't compare today to WW2. It's a totally losing argument.

But since you bought up the past, since WW2, we've "invested" in Education and Poverty at massive levels in the federal government and both issues are at Crisis points, would you not agree? What's your comment on that, and your solution, other than send Obama $1.6 Trillion in NEW TAXES?

@ Patrick - Again. What is your PhD?

@Guarda Sikh if you read what I have written I have said I defer to the experts in the field. Even the World Bank just released a report about the world wild effect of climate change, focusing on costal areas... so NO I never said i was an expert. I stated the climate change experts all agree. So. if you have an issue with me, fine. if you have a problem with me having an issue with climate change deniers, then prove me wrong.

Welfare states, you mean the red ones? I'm not understanding your facts bit, nor welfare state comment. In terms of global warming the fact is it is happening.. So wouldn't it make sense in a rational world to aid or slow it's progress. Or is it all about you and the now?

Thats right climate change right wing nut job deniers Sandy wasnt a Hurricane lol

tell that to the ppl who lost their homes and let me know how you make out
and if it wasnt a Hurricane just wait until one hits
and dont forget
1 Mittens thinks Fema is immoral so dont file a claim
2 if you do file you are a hypocrite
3 there is no such thing as magic underwear

Amen and Hallelujah

3 million years ago in the Canadia ARTIC there grew a forest, This could occur again with the natural changes occuring with the sun and planet. Our sun will eventually dry earth up..... Nothing in nature is stagnant but money can be made with anything.

WLTD- sorry, misread what you wrote. 100% agree. You're property is yours to do as you please. As someone who has been going down to LBI since I was a kid I can assure you I wouldn't walk across someones property to get on the beach.

That being said, I don't think 1 penny of tax money should be spent to repair homes or business properties. If people didn't have insurance...tough sh*t.
But I also have no problem ( as a NJ resident) with paying for beach badges.
No different then paying to get into State Parks. Having lifeguards and keeping the beaches clean shouldn't become the expense of the local townships when we all get to use the beach.

Actually in elementary school they are indoctrinating our children into thinking that man is responsible for the condition of the earth and that Obama is saving the planet in addition to keeping Disneyworld open.

Don't laugh. I guarantee that is what they are teaching our children in school.

It's been a long time since I was in elementary school.

It really is amazing just how many PHDs there are on Patch with the time to comment... Tell AOL has done a great job marketing to the intellectual core of New Jersey... bluebeam, where can I read your studies on this?

I tell you what, I used to be embarrassed back in the days of Bush by some of the stupid, and even today by the Twinkie jokes about the gov. But, this thread has got to have thinking conservatives fear for the direction of their party. At least I can get some solice in the fact that crazy right is a minority that doesn't win elections.

@ Patrick - Seems that you yourself spend an inordinate amount of time and effort squabbling on other people's comments. Got a PhD? Part of the "intellectual core" whatever the heck that is?

@Guarda Sikh It is quite simple... When people toss out opinion that runs in the face of every scientific reality based on what... a wish? a hope? what? yes that is sarcasm, when I say that AOL has marketed this site to the intelligent persons on the internet.

so there you go. is that all you have issue with?

Open your eyes to what's going on in the universe and stop trying to profiteer and control people!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEo3PBaVha8&sns=em

The YouTube video linked in the preceding comment was produced by an anonymous person, who goes by "Suspicious0bservers." It is totally lacking in ANY scientific peer review, the hallmark and gold standard of good science.

The linked video is typical of the sort of specious junk that most climate-change Deniers rely on, especially on venues such as this one. At least with regard to the ill-informed talk-radio entertainment industry, we know the source of the specious junk (flatly rejected by ALL reputable scientific organizations in this country).

BTW, NASA has rejected the notion that the Sun is responsible for the Earth's warming over the last century, finding that the emission of solar energy has in fact decreased over that period of time. NASA, like virtually ALL other well-respected scientific organizations in the United States, has concluded that global warming is indeed caused, in large measure, by the accumulation of manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Patrick and Steve are the same person and an idiot.

Hey Steve, I guess all the links to legitimate data that Suspicious0bservers provides with each and every video is too much for you to stomach, huh?

"Peer review"? Like in the hockey stick chart?

yeah moonbeam because slave labor in china and 3rd world countries like it is much better for the bottom line oh you christian conservatives are a funny bunch of hypocrites

This just in . . . here's more from the same news, which was intentionally deleted by Mr. Monk (thus revealing his true agenda):

"The creation of the office drew fire at the time from some Republicans, who said it was an unnecessary expense and a distraction from the agency’s focus on terrorism and other more immediate threats. The agency did not say whether the closing was related to budget constraints or other political pressures.

Todd Ebitz, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency would continue to monitor the security and humanitarian challenges posed by climate change as part of its focus on economic security, but not in a stand-alone office.

“ 'The C.I.A. for several years has studied the national security implications of climate change,” Mr. Ebitz said in an e-mailed statement. “As part of a broader realignment of analytic resources, this work continues to be performed by a dedicated team in a new office that looks at economic and energy matters affecting America’s national security. The mission and the resources devoted to it remain essentially unchanged.'”

And here's the complete news-report quote corresponding to Mr. Monk's misleadingly cropped "quote" that was unduly critical of the CIA's climate-change monitoring:

"Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, has been the most vocal critic of the C.I.A.’s climate change work. He welcomed the closing of its office.

“Closing the Climate Change Center at the C.I.A. was the right decision,” Mr. Barrasso said in a statement. “I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to eliminate the center because it was unnecessary, wasteful and totally out of place. It’s critically important for the C.I.A. to focus its resources on preventing terrorism and keeping Americans safe.” "

So the cropped source of the quoted disparagement of the CIA's work was only John Barrasso, a conservative senator from Wyoming (which has a very high carbon footprint from its oil and gas production), who has voted with the Republicans 94% of the time, who received an "A" from the NRA for his political views, and who introduced a bill just last year that would have prevented the government from controlling the emission of pollutants such as carbon dioxide (widely produced by his principal political donors in Wyoming). Barrasso's bill died in Congress (as did his proposed amendment to eliminate the CIA's climate-change work).

If the NRA is backing a politician then you should vote for them. You liberals are tools.

Yes, but meanwhile our beloved Obama and his beautiful wife spent 20 years listening to Reverend Wright and how evil the white man is.

LOL.

Stop embarrassing yourself with the illiterate hieroglyphics.