Do you believe in global warming?

[TjD]

Warming could worsen Great Lakes problems
http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf ... en_gr.html

"Evaporation rates are likely to rise, causing already-low water levels to fall 1 foot on Lake Superior, 3 feet on Lakes Michigan and Huron, 2.7 feet on Lake Erie and 1.7 feet on Lake Ontario over the next century, the report says. ......

U.S. Senate prepares for debate next week on proposed global warming legislation."

[AEW]

The poll "Do you believe in global warming" is an inadequate question. The questions should be, 1. "Do you believe that man causes climate change, and if so, do you also believe that man can change the climate back to "normal, and what is "Normal" ie what should the temp be on May 29th on beaver Island"(how do we know when we are done fixing the climate?) It is undenialbe that the earths temperature changes, the eath has increased in temp .74 degrees since 1900. (most prior to 1940). Then we must ask Why, of course there is natural phenominum, ocean currents, solar activity, forrest fires dumping tons of CO2 (Nasa earth observatory has great sattelite images, etc. 3. Finally, does the theory that temp change is a global crisis hold true. Legislation, I hope is driven by fact, not theory.
http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... 7&Itemid=1

[jmcbain2]

AEW - The link you post is an industry backed organization that has been debunked by reputable scientists and offers no proof of their findings. Thankfully global warming deniers are becoming rarer faster than polar bears.

Fact - the climate is changing. Fact - the climate does work in natural cycles. Fact - man-made activity is speeding up and worsening the cycles.

Now, think on this, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming, is it really so bad to look at new, cleaner ways of industry and energy? No.

[jmcbain2]

AEW - The link you post is an industry backed organization that has been debunked by reputable scientists and offers no proof of their findings. Thankfully global warming deniers are becoming rarer faster than polar bears.

Fact - the climate is changing. Fact - the climate does work in natural cycles. Fact - man-made activity is speeding up and worsening the cycles.

Now, think on this, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming, is it really so bad to look at new, cleaner ways of industry and energy? No.

[R3P0]

Warming could worsen Great Lakes problems
http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf ... en_gr.html

"Evaporation rates are likely to rise, causing already-low water levels to fall 1 foot on Lake Superior, 3 feet on Lakes Michigan and Huron, 2.7 feet on Lake Erie and 1.7 feet on Lake Ontario over the next century, the report says. ......

U.S. Senate prepares for debate next week on proposed global warming legislation."

global warming is a myth

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm


what we should be looking at is the manipulation of the Ionosphere by HAARP

The 57' pipe in Lake Michigan near chicago ( some project called Deep dig I think) pumping millions of gallons of water from lake michigan

the pipeline in minnesota pumping lake superior water to the thristy states in new mexico etc.

There has been NO rise in temperature since 1999. Models for the Artic show that it should be warming and yet the live data shows that it is actually cooling.

Look at the models that are being used, wrong data sets give wrong answers. No data sets that I have researched consider the water vapor in the atmosphere, which is a critical component.

I only offer this information as I just spent 10 days on garden Island and was shocked to see how much "desert bays" have been created by the waterlevels being so low. Just in one year since we were last on Garden island shorelines have increased 50 feet to 50 yards out into the lakes. We could only sit and wonder where all the water is going. Water vapor from Global warming don't add up to these kinds of losses.

James Robinson
aka R3P0

[Chamber of Commerce]

"The 57' pipe in Lake Michigan near chicago .............the pipeline in minnesota pumping lake superior water to the thristy states in new mexico etc..........................."



And at Area 51 the little green space men .............................

Steve West

[R3P0]

"

And at Area 51 the little green space men .............................

Steve West

http://www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us/plants/tarp.htm This is chicagos CSO separation project. They say that this is all sewer, road and roof top water run off. But some believe that this breached into the bottom of Lake Michigan thus creating and illegal diversion of water.


Minnesota pipeline info;

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html

more on diversions of our great lakes resources.

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/factsheets ... ls5_e.html

while this aritcle shows net gains for lake superior because of the hudson bay diversion, the Excelisor project in Minnesota greatly mitigates this.

More on water wars:
http://waterwars.wordpress.com/2007/04/ ... -dry-land/

http://waterwars.wordpress.com/

If you are really interested in keeping Great Lakes waters clean and in their basins check out this group.

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/

Lots of information and a great list to subscribe to that alerts you to legislation relating to waters that you can email or write to your congress and representatives about.

okay so maybe the little green men did affect me on the chicago thing. I still believe when the contruction breach happened allowing water to directly flow into the system that it was never fixed properly and tons of water flow illegally into this project. Rather that from the 2mile out Catch basins that chicago has been using for years.

[Dan Wardlow]

"Belief" has nothing to do with understanding science. It is undeniable that global warming is in progress now, and humankind has had something to do with causing the most recent rise.

More important is what can humankind do to mitigate the effects?

Wanna read a good book? "Six Degrees: Our Future In A Warmer World" by Mark Lynas, published by National Geographic Society. He does a degree-by-degree summary of existing scientific research on global warming.

[ScottS]

"The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg is a good one too.

[AEW]

http://www.petitionproject.org/
Wow, this seems more like a scientific conscensus than the IPCC's.

[Dan Wardlow]

The Petition Project is a propaganda tool of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Aside from checking out their own website, you might also want to look at what SourceWatch has to say about them.

"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

Robinson is the only paid member of the "faculty" at OISM.

And here's the real scoop behind the Petition Project, and the supposed review article which allegedly summarizes the existing science on global warming.

Note that the petition organizers are so lax in checking credentials that pretty much anyone can sign on, regardless whether or not you have any credentials in the areas of biology, climatology, physics, plaeo-climatology, chemistry, or any other discipline that might even remotely be related to the issues surrounding global warming.

So there is science, and then there is quack science. I guess you take your pick.

[Chamber of Commerce]

"The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg is a good one too.

Yes it was interesting!!!! It was kind of chillie this winter and spring wasn't it? As I recall he points out that far more people die from cold than heat, and much more. I kind of like to get a varity of view points.

Another view:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZG ... ZiNGYwNjk=

[AEW]

I was looking for morels a few days ago, Down east side drive is a little shack on the west side of the road in the bend near Keerans property. As i walked back there I saw old car batteries, a fridge on its side with old paint cans in it, a few barrels or "mystery fluid". These are all within several feet of a little creek. Would anyone care to help me clean up this crap and get it to the transfer station? I have a truck to haul it but could use some help lifting. Give me a call. 448-2581 / 231-675-0816
Thanks!

[TjD]

Senator James M. Inhofe, (R - OK) spoke early in the preceeding yesterday expressing thoughts similiar to the comments here by AEW. The Oklahoma Senator went on to point out that the debate was limited to the bill only and that the scientific facts behind the need for the bill were off limit under the rules established. I think these arguments should be debated With both side of this issue predicting dire consequences if the other side triumphs. With 30 hours of debate now scheduled before any amendments can even be introduced and debated its a shame that the underlying facts will not be discussed. Proponents for the bill acknowledge that passage this year is unlikely. and in typical Washington fashion we are promised a great debate and no real decisions.


"The debate, which could last all week, will force senators to take a stand on some of the most difficult, expensive and potentially life-altering questions the world will face in coming decades. ....
All three major presidential candidates have expressed support for the cap-and-trade concept that underlies this legislation, but all have said they would like to see changes in the current bill"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/washi ... nvironment



"Global warming deniers will continue to attack even the mildest efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. But the risks involved in doing nothing -- including far lower levels in the Great Lakes -- have grown too great to ignore. And the talent that could be put toward innovative solutions has been sitting idle for too long."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 0315&imw=Y

"As the Lieberman-Warner bill comes up for a vote, critics are telling us that we can't afford to do anything about climate change. They've got it backwards: we can't afford to do NOTHING.

"I directed a recent study of the costs of inaction for the U.S. If we do nothing to control climate change, just four categories of costs - damages from more intense hurricanes, sea level rise, increased energy costs, and increased water supply costs - will reach almost $2 trillion per year by the end of this century. And that's just for four areas. A standard economic model of climate costs estimates total U.S. damages at twice that high, almost $4 trillion per year." (For the study, see http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/contents.asp )

Comment by Dr. Frank Ackerman, Economist, Tufts University & Stockholm Environment Institute
google news commentDoing something about climate change is a bargain; doing NOTHING is expensive

http://news.google.com/news?btcid=a2634e273cac046f


Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called it "a giant tax on virtually every aspect of the economy," and accused Democrats of being "laughably out of touch" in taking up the bill when the country is reeling from $4 a gallon gasoline and other high energy costs.

President Bush said at a White House event that the measure amounted to "a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases" and that it "would impose roughly $6 trillion in new costs on the American economy."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-9F ... AD9127L1O0

[Dan Wardlow]

"President Bush said at a White House event that the measure amounted to "a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases" and that it "would impose roughly $6 trillion in new costs on the American economy."

I guess that's easy to say for a guy who's just imposed a $3 trillion dollar war on the economy to defend U.S. oil interests in the mideast.