Skip to comments.If Sandy doesn't destroy Obama's climate cowardice, what will?
Posted on 11/02/2012 7:37:14 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The post-superstorm endorsement of Barack Obama by NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg as "a president that can lead on climate change" could be globally significant.
Could the backing of Barack Obama by the mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg be "the most important news story of all time"? Was the "Frankenstorm" Sandy the disaster some, including David Attenborough this week, believed was unfortunately necessary to wake the US and the world from its slumber over global warming?
It has certainly resurrected the issue in the US, as my colleague there Suzanne Goldenberg reports, and has broken the extraordinary climate silence Obama instigated in the spring of 2009 - having decided that climate change was not a winning issue for him.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
There is a reason we used to shoot you Brits on sight, we do not like your form of Government.
News flash, al-Guardian. The game is over. Obama will not be able to do diddly as a lame duck, and MMGW is about as dead an issue with Romney as it gets. Even if he had a passing interest in it, a Republican congress would just laugh as it slashes the EPA budget.
A Category 1 hurricane hitting at high tide on a full moon next to a happenstance cold front does not call for any more meaningful discussion on the hoax of ‘global warming’. Period.
I get that Sandy caused a lot of damage due to the circumstances during landfall and good people have suffered loss. But that’s where the discussion needs to stop.
Agree on that.
Maybe these climate experts can comment on the 40+ hurricanes that have hit that area in recorded history PRIOR to 1866.
GW is a hoax perpetrated by the left and anarchists to destroy capitalism. It is the last ditch effort of the communists to destroy America.
As much as I enjoy his narrations, Attenborough is a liberal nutjob.
Historical records are full of the term 'Nor'easter', which is exactly what Sandy was.
OK, “Guardian Editor”,
when you answer these questions in detail, get back with me.
1) What does “taking action on global warming” look like, in actual policy, not generalities?
2) How much and how soon can we expect to see measurable results of these policies? If no results are evident, will the policy be scrapped?
3) What will the economic consequences of these policies be?
Again, when you can answer these questions, get back to me.
“Climate change” is code for “Communists in Control.”
yes in this hurricane sparse year , they conveniently forget the cold front
Great New England Hurricane of 1938, anyone?
Could this be the "stupidest rhetorical question of all time?"
This just shows how far the Global Warming acolytes have fallen. They now claim a strong tropical storm is proof of catastrophic global warming. They have lost all shreds of integrity.
I stand corrected. I was using wind gust figures in my initial post and you are quite right.
Sandy was literally ripped apart by that cold front. Watched a live map showing real time wind gusts along the east coast just as Sandy was landing. Gusts were up to 79 MPH. Just hurricane strength gusts. No sustained hurricane force winds. Basically the cold front sucked Sandy right in and ate it up. So the power of the cold front actually weakened Sandy’s punch. It made the cold front more powerful, but not by much. Cold air has a higher density. This means that this winter could be very bad in the area. Imagine winter storms so powerful they can eat up a Cat 1 Hurricane and not even burp.