It does not bode well for our children's future if Republicans gain full control of the government.

Of course, since we are so much in favor of undrinkable water, unbreathable air and untillable soil...LOL

Amusing that you need to consider the source. Just note that in 201 the EPA wrote more regulations than in any other year of their history and it would take an average person working 40 hours a week over 10 months to read those new regulations. No wonder businesses aren't thriving overall in this economy.

Republicans (including Nan Hayworth) seem to believe that industry can regulate itself, and they promote dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency along with rolling back the Clean Water Act. I don't believe that New Yorkers will buy this as a solution to our modern day problems.

Surprise, surprise, a story in Patch written by an admitted liberal citing information arranged and prepared by a left wing liberal organization that put the Republican Party in a bad light without the slightest attempt by the reporter to obtain views of the other side despite his profile indicating that he is fair and balanced. This is a disgraceful piece of biased one- sided reporting.

With the deceptive lead line that Nan Hayworth is the fifth highest scoring Republican representative on environmental issues, the author of this article conceals the fact that Nan Hayworth is really as anti-environment, as she is anti-human rights. She continually tries to deceive her constituents regarding her voting record, which is abysmal.

This is bad journalism.

Watchdog, why don't you talk to the facts of the matter rather than the commonly bandied about partisan rhetoric. Can you give a reason that these votes against what LCV considers environmentally positive legislation were actually good for the environment? You are obvioiusly a passionatje political animal, but please confine your remarks to the facts so that the discourse can be objective.

Scott, I am a small business owner and do not find enviornmental regulations onerouis. Can you give us some concrete examples of what you are referring to rather than broad brush strokes about the number of regulations covering all industry and business countrywide?

I've read the article and it's not accusing anyone of anything. It is simply reporting on a rating that was given to legislators based upon their voting record. As to Nan Hayworth, she will probably be among the ranks of the unemployed in January because her voting record is abysmal and now that we've seen that the Tea Party movement is dead, it's time for a return to sanity.

@ Don...the more regulations equals the more insurance...and of course the biggest insurance bondoggle of them all...Obamacare and the regulation that Catholic and other religious entities must provide for contraceptives in the face of their belief systems..."I don't see much problems..."...you are too funny...

@ Pete...the Taxed Enough ALready Party is not dead...we are merely not the 'sheeple' that union worked and others are. When it is time to unite, we will not untie.

You do not inherit the earth from your ancestors. You borrow it from your children.
The conservatives of yesteryear were as concerned as the liberals with the air, water and soil. When did all that change? Remember when you pollute the air, you'll be breathing it too. Government regulations exists for a reason. The reason is that we cannot trust all corporations to do the right thing. Look around at the Superfund Sites. They were all created by corporations. Look at the Hudson River. We may never be able to remove the PCB's from the sediment. They weren't put there by liberals or conservatives, they were put there by unregulated corporations.

CLUE:He also said, "When did that change?",

Watchdog, I will definitelyi not respond again to any of your comments in this thread. I feel like a teacher trying to correct a slow student's paper. You stated "Where did you get the idea that Conservatives did not [c]are about the environment?" Peekskill Pete said no such thing. He said that conservatives CARED about the environment. I'm glad you have a broker that is on your wavelength and does a good job representing you...I need clear communication with my clients to represent them and advocate for them..

GGood Don, the problem all you libs have is that you hang with each other with no one to offer an opposing view. U would still like to know why all the illegals live in neiboring Portchedter and none in Rye among all the caring folks? FACE IT! FAKE, PHONY FRAUDS.

Watchdog, So can we put you down as a defender of the environment? Whether you like Pete or not, wouldn't it be great if we could all work together on this one.

LOL Can you name an environmental policy championed by conservatives? Ever since Reagan ripped the solar panels of the White House conservatives have fought any policy that helps the environment: National Forest Logging, Arctic oil drilling, tax breaks for hummers no CAFE standards etc.

Despite the fact that the earth is warming they refuse to do anything that might slow it, just because Al Gore might get rich.

Issy, just a few things you got wrong. No CAFE standards? Do you follow the automobile business at all. There are higher standards than the auto companies can attain. Every increase in the cafe standard makes the automobile more costly. Does that effect the rich. NO. Drilling in the Arctic? Where are we doing that in Anwar, the desolate area of Alaska ? National forests logging? Do you remember the forest fires?. They were caused by NOT clearing the old dead trees. Tax breaks for hummers as opposed to tax breaks for electric cars that aren't selling?
Lastly I love this one [Despite the fact that the earth is warming they refuse to do anything that might slow it, just because Al Gore might get rich.] MIGHT get rich, are you kidding? The earth would be warming or cooling WITHOUT humans inhabiting it. We only have a very small part in that. You had better push through a bill in congress to condemn the sun and the volcanoes, for they are the main cause of warming/cooling, whatever flavor of the day.

Issy,
One way or another we will soon find out as the hydro-fracking controversy comes to New York. It seems we've already drawn up party lines on this one, but, I urge everyone to study up on Dimock, Pa before they say this practice is harmless to the environment. Hopefully Watchdog will support banning this practice here as a conservation issue.

Francis, I'm not doubting that natural causes can change the climate without mans help. But man can also change the climate and that is a fact that all legitimate scientists agree on. When it comes to science, I'd prefer to listen to scientists and not politicians.

Kevin, I didn't say that volcanoes were the only influence on climate change. The United Sates of America has been a leader when it comes to a clean environment. You can't say that about the majority of the rest of the world. Why is it always us that is blamed for the world pollution problem? Ever been to China, India, Mexico, to name a few. Let the rest of the world clean up its act and then criticize us.

Ahh, I see. Thank you for clarifying Francis. So, it could be a combination of things that can change climate. How many ways do people influence climate? Hmmm...

And if the United States has been a leader when it comes to a clean environment, it has been no thanks to conservatives and big business, who fight it every step of the way, and have shipped our jobs overseas for cheap labor and lax environmental regs. Now you want those countries to clean up their act? Well that's just not good for business, is it?

Kevin, if the US tax code made it favorable to do businesses here, then companies would not have to go off shores to manufacturer their products!
Again if you missed it THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR HUNDREDS AND MULLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF MAN. !!! Sorry about shouting, but you seem to have a hearing problem.

Francis, I didn't miss it. I understand it fairly well. My initial comment, if YOU missed it, said "you are right about the climate naturally changing." That is a fact that nobody denies. However, that does not mean that humans couldn't possibly influence the environment.

Taxes are higher here because Americans demand and deserve a better place to live than third world countries. Those other countries are a hell of a bargain because they are desperate for work, business and money. We worked hard to build a great country, and it doesn't come cheap or easy.

Kevin, then why would the administration want to take away a driving force in economic development and want to increase in the excise tax? Do you think that will spur the economy on to being bigger and better for all?
I also never said that humans didn't have any part in global warming/cooling. I said only a very small part.

The whole system is flawed. We need resposible businesses. Businesses that care about where they are from. Our infrastructure is crumbling. This country is falling farther and farther behind. The private sector isn't doing jack. They complain and complain, and when they get a break, a bailout, and profits soar, they keep it all. Don't even try to give me some trickle down nonsense.

I am happy that you have recognized that humans can in fact change the climate. Regarding your comment about fudging the numbers, I thought all of those scientists were cleared of any wrong doing. I don't know what papers you're reading. Same thing with ACORN. All cleared. Probably not talked about in great detail on Hannity or O'Reilly. People were up in flames when a pimp walks in to an ACORN facility trying to scam the system. When we find out it was all a sham, it's crickets with you people.

Ok. Sorry Francis. I am confused, and I am hoping you can help me. I remember seeing stories like this (taken from "your" side): http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/14/climate-scientists-united-nations-misinterpret-data/.

Kevin, there is no "your" side. CO2 levels are rising, the earth is warming, marine life is being decimated from increased acidity, sea levels rising and the glaciers and ice caps are melting: These are indisputable facts supported by 97% of climate scientists, every bona fide university and research facility and every scientific journal.

The "your" side would rather defame all the above, misrepresent and distort facts, listen to ignorant lying political pundits and quote reports from Exxon Mobile, than face reality. The "your" side refuse to discuss the science instead they fiddle like Nero while the earth 'burns'.

Let's stop the shenanigans. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Humans do NOT cause global warming, or else HUMANS would have CAUSED the last BIG WARM UP of 40,000 years ago.

Krakatoa in 1883, Alaska in 1912 and Iceland in 1946...those three volcanic reruptions put more stuff into the air than HUMANS have form be beginning of humanity until 2100...and wait,...it's only 2012....

I would say that greater environmental cleanliness has caused warming. How so? Look at when I went to HS...in the late 1970's right after lead was taken out of gasoline. The Hudson froze over three of the four ewinters, and our air was of the worst quality insofar os pollutants, etc. went.

Stop the insanity...NOW!

Scott, CO2 is a green house gas. Period. I cannot believe you are comparing the impact humans are having on the planet now, versus 40,000 years ago. CO2 allows energy to enter our atmosphere and keeps in the generated heat. The eruptions from volcanoes, including ash, sulfur dioxide and other elements, actually blocks the suns rays and leads to cooling of the planet.

I've heard you bring up your nostalgic observation of how the Hudson froze in the 70's. That's a cute story, but your assertion that creating a cleaner environment created negative environmental impacts is just flat out wrong. Your story really makes little sense and isn't supported by any scientific facts. Shenanigans. Insanity.

Scott, What color is the sky in your world? Clean air is causing global warming? Maybe you should be on Fox because even they haven't come up with this one. CO2 causes what is commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect. That is that it lets the rays of the sun in but keeps the heat from dissipating and thus raises the temperature. This isn't new science or some liberal plot, this is science that was taught to me in the 8th Grade and I'm 64 years old. As to lead being taken out of gasoline that was done because lead is a bad thing. It causes brain damage, birth defects and a host of other problems.
Look what's going on around you and figure it out. I guarantee you we are not holding secret meetings to destroy big corporations but I fear they're having meetings that are destroying our world.

When the sun comes out it is hotter than when the sun does not come out. I have lived a hood number of years and have not noticed any significant patterns in the changes of weather. Stores sell shorts and bathing suits in the summer and warm coats In the winter. Most of the CO2 is caused by exhaling so if you and your friends want to lower your carbon footprint whatever that cute term means, you can all hold your collective breaths for significant periods of time.

Good news everybody!! Based on the extensive scientific research of Watchdog, who hasn't noticed any significant patterns in the changes of weather, based on decades of data collection and analysis I'm sure, and Scott Walters who saw the Hudson freeze in the 70's, there is nothing to worry about!! Yaaaaay!!

Watchdog/Francis/Scott,
Every morning when I get up and walk into my tile bathroom, I notice that my feet are cold. This therefore proves that there is no global warming because if there was I'm sure my bathroom tiles would be hot and not cold which is what they were forty years ago when I did the same thing.
Stay in your world. We will deal with the reasonable people who believe in science.