There are ancient ruins well below sea level all around the Med. The seas have been rising for millenia, ever since the end of the last ice age.

Russian scientists just successfully grew flowers from seeds that were 32,000 years old. Explain that!

I didn't read all the comments, but from the ones I read, no one has recognized that the US represents a mere 2% of the earth's surface. A few weeks of hot weather in one year on a tiny fraction of the earth's surface is hardly anything to get excited about. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/07/editorial-hansen-is-simply-wrong-and-a-complete-and-abject-failure/

I have 265 website accounts. I'm supposed to go through and change the passwords on them every week? Are you crazy?

President Clinton cancelled the SCSC about five minutes after he assumed the presidency in Jan 1993. He was punishing the state of Texas for voting Republican in the 1992 election.

Actually, the hurricanes we get are not only less in number, they are less in intensity. Look it up.

Dude, you totally missed my point, which is: If we want to get off oil, we need vastly more nuclear power. Yes the transition will take a long time, but mainly because of politically correct foot-dragging, not because of technology. And with coal fired plants being closed by the dozen under Obama, the cost of electricity is going to continue to rise. Wind and solar can't really make more than a tiny dent in the need. Fracking for natural gas can provide a stopgap measure for a couple decades, but environmentalists are starting to gear up against that too.

Right.

How odd your perspective that gasoline addiction is for the rich ("What's it worth to you to keep gas filled blow-hards redistributing money..."). You have it exactly backwards. Who do you think is buying those Tesla's at $50K, the 99% or the 1%? Yes, it is only the rich buying them, and that means the subsidies from the government are coming from the 99% to the 1% - so if you are an OWS type or a liberal (but I repeat myself), you should be opposing any government help in subsidizing the Tesla. Second big issue I've not seen addressed in the comments is: Where is the energy supposed to come from for all these electric cars? If all the cars in the US were electric, it would take in excess of 100 additional nuclear power plants to provide energy for them - and that's pretty easy to calculate for an electrical engineer, which I am. Actually, it's easy to calculate using 6th grade math. Very few people have the real estate or the cash to be able to lay out another $10K to $20K for a solar power system to keep their Tesla charged. Maybe that it is included in the Tesla's sale price, but I doubt it. I'm all in favor of electric cars and building additional nuclear power plants, but part 2 isn't happening because the same people who are pushing part 1 are opposing part 2.

Obama ignores court orders which he doesn't like, so it won't make any difference what the court finally decides.

Right. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but there is a big difference between pollution (such as acid rain and waterway contamination), and climate change. Our environment is vastly cleaner than it was a few decades ago; and in some areas cleaner than it would be if there were no humans at all around. But the entire area of climate change (aka, global warming) is not so clear, and has nothing to do with clean water to drink. It is well documented, but the bottom line is the data and the analyses on the magnitude of global warming is suspect at best and politicaly contrived at worst. We are left with mostly speculation as to if there even is global warming, especially in light of such things as warmer climes in historical times. It warming is valid, what if anything is causing it, and should we even do anything about it if real? Is our climate today perfect? Anyway, stopping acid rain is NOT the same thing as reducing human impact on the climate. Stop acid rain - yes. Stop emitting CO2 - no.

One vote per person? I recall I think it was in NYC a few years ago some judge wanted Hispanic votes to count more than one vote per person. Anyway, the perfect solution is paper ballots (hand-marked) and purple ink on the finger. Three more things would help: voter ID, careful control while maintaining and transporting ballots, and keep New Black Panthers, KKK, and every other potential intimidating threat away from polling places. Result: 100% perfect voting at negligible cost. Let me guess which party would oppose this? Hmmmmm

The US does not, nor has ever plan to, build an impenetrible missile defense system. Not only would it be prohibitively expensive, it would not even be possible. Nor is there any good reason to do so. So postulating the false dilemma of no missile defense or an impenatrible missile defense, then saying only no system makes sense is clearly illogical. How about a very limited system that cannot possibly threaten Russia's offensive capability?

They don't need our technology to build a missile defense system. For one thing, the Russians have had a deployed missile defense system for 40 years. Also, there isn't just a "technology." Hit-to-kill technology comprises dozens of state of the art developments, most of which have many other defense applications, the details of which if known, would make countermeasures more easy to develop. Since anything given to Russia or China would find its way to other countries, it would only be a short time that we would be victimized by our own foolishness in giving away such technology. That is why there are very strict laws about technology transfer to other countries. Surely that is obvious to even the most .....never mind, no use getting crass.