Ann Arbor lawmakers call for action on climate change
Three state lawmakers from Ann Arbor went on record this week raising concerns about global warming and together issued a call for action on climate change.
Their comments came as dozens of climate change experts gathered for the National Climate Assessment town hall at the University of Michigan.
"The science is clear: global warming is a growing problem, and it's not going away," said state Rep. Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor.
Adam Zemke
Rebekah Warren
Jeff Irwin
As a new state legislator beginning his first term of office, Zemke said he's committed to doing everything in his power to support President Barack Obama and other national leaders in protecting future generations from "the innumerable effects of global warming."
Obama used his State of the Union address Tuesday night to propose a plan for tackling climate change, pointing out the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the past 15.
The National Climate Assessment draft report shows the Midwest and Michigan experiencing increased heat wave intensity and frequency, exacerbated public health problems, heightened risks to the Great Lakes such as invasive species, and extreme weather events that harm agriculture crops.
The report was coordinated by 13 federal government agencies under the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and was written by an advisory committee consisting of 60 scientists and other experts. The last National Climate Assessment report was released in 2009.
"The message is clear: With per capita greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent higher in the Midwest than the national average, we need to act quickly and responsibly to mitigate the negative consequences to our environment, our economy and our public health, or we will pay later," said Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, Democratic vice chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes, and a member of the Great Lakes Commission.
"The good news is that we have an amazing opportunity at both the state and federal level to address this critical issue while also creating new clean energy jobs for our people," Warren said.
Statewide environmental activists are calling for stronger clean air safeguards to protect public health, the Great Lakes and agriculture in Michigan.
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency is in the process of finalizing a rule to limit carbon emissions from new power plants. Groups like the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Clean Water Action and Environment Michigan support further limits on carbon pollution from power plants.
"Whether we seize the moment and reinvent our systems of energy, transportation and agriculture practices or whether we fail to act and suffer the worsening consequences of climate change, we are facing fundamental changes to how we eat, move and live," said Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor. "That’s why it's so important that, here in Michigan, we act immediately to shape this change, and it's the reason I’m committed to support clean energy, public transportation and green chemistry."
Obama said Tuesday night that if Congress won't act soon, he will direct his cabinet to come up with executive actions to take now and in the future to reduce pollution, prepare communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.
"Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods — all are now more frequent and intense," the president said. "We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it's too late."
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who gave the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union, dismissed the idea that the U.S. government could do anything to combat climate change, saying passing a bunch of laws could destroy the economy, but it isn't going to change the weather.
The Ann Arbor City Council took action in December to adopt a Climate Action Plan, a 188-page document that outlines dozens of ways to reduce the community's carbon footprint.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
NoSUVforMe
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 12:48 a.m.
The fight of the century. In the pro corner, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change representing thousands of climatologists and scientists assessing research from 120 countries. In the anti corner, Roseville Mike, GED, shift leader at Dunkin Donuts and a keen observer of the rain from his broken down pickup truck. Backing up Roseville Mike is the AA.com blog o'smear consisting of DTE Ed, Consumers Power Dick, and Clean Coal Blacklung. Oh, Exxon, Chevron, and every coal mine owner. Backing up the IGPCC is the National Academy of Scientists and 34 national science institutes, hundreds of universities, and sane people everywhere. You pick the winner.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Feb 20, 2013 : 1:33 a.m.
If you knew anything, you would know that China is installing more renewable energy than we are. They will own the new energy economy because small minded, anti-science cretins ar being bought and paid for by big special interests. I wish you could breath the polluted air you seem to love so much. It would shorten your life and the world would be a better place.
martini man
Tue, Feb 19, 2013 : 11:31 p.m.
I'll pick Roseville Mike and company,over some goggle eyed left wing pseudo scientist any time.The real winners will be the Chinese as they sit laughing at the USA while we try to regulate climate change. they'll just keep on producing and polluting and loaning us money from their profits, while we self destruct.
Hesh Breakstone
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 9:35 p.m.
This is directed at those who do not share the view that man made climate change is real. More specifically this is directed at folks who ignore events such as Katrina, Sandy, last summer.... the hottest summer in recorded history...., and much more. I know it's not easy being a republican these days and seeing fit to obstruct and deny all things simply because it's all about politics to you. It used to be that when politics was too hot a topic, pardon the pun.... that the weather was safe ground... It must be really, really tough being you.... these days.... I mean with Al Gore, CFL light bulbs, carbon cr*dits...., and federal funding for alternative energy research and all... But, nonetheless it begs the question that was also asked in Bill Cosby's routine titled "Noah..." So my question to ya is: How long can YOU tread water?
NoSUVforMe
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 12:52 a.m.
Exxon, DTE, Chevron, Consumers Power plays the music and the fools dance all night.
CynicA2
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 8:05 p.m.
If you believe that our government can change long-term weather trends, without destroying the economy, you are really dreaming. They can't even competently manage the basic tasks of government - which are doable, so clearly they are in over their heads on this one... who was that King who thought he could turn back the tides?! And these three idiots are just pandering to their gullible, liberal constituents, who also buy into the hubris of legislating climate.
CynicA2
Tue, Feb 19, 2013 : 7:34 a.m.
Libs out in force today, I see... must be federal workers who have the day-off today. Your day is coming, folks!
CynicA2
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 2:52 a.m.
I believe the "climate" has been changing since this planet was a swirling mass of gas and molten rock - some changes are rapid and fitful, others occur over millions of years - and if there is something wrong with it, the current crowd of Washington politicos is not going to "fix" it... but they can (and probably will) screw-up a bunch of other things as a result of various unintended consequences... like, duhhh - "we didn't think about that."
arborani
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 10:20 p.m.
King Canute. I do believe in climate change, b ut in this instance the comparison is apt.
Robert Gordon
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.
97% of climate scientists, about as much of a consensus as you will ever get, agree that humans play at least a significant role in ongoing global climate change. I am pleased our Ann Arbor contingent realizes what most Republicans do not, that science is an excellent foundation upon which to base policy.
Basic Bob
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 9:24 p.m.
Policy doesn't change people. Do your part. Get a smaller car, drive less, slow down, turn off a light, lower your thermostat, plant a tree, buy an older home closer to your job, walk to work, eat less meat, don't buy a new car or television or laptop or cell phone every year. That's an excellent foundation for change, and it's far more than local politicians are willing to personally contribute to solving the problem.
katmando
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
It's to late to stop it now we need programs that will help us adapt. The oil companies and right-wing have been denying it to long.
Liberty Soule
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.
So, we have local legislators who are going to fix global warming? Are they going to travel India and China and recommend the greenhouse gases? Why don't you work realistic this that can really change. Surely, we have more pressing issues.
Hesh Breakstone
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 9:38 p.m.
No actually my read is that we have local legislators who actually give a darn... about the folks that they represent and as such reflect what the majority of the folks that they represent wish to see. I applaud the three mentioned in this article.
DonBee
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
The best summary I can put on the article is: "Trust me, I am an important person, I know how to spend your money better than you do, so let me raise taxes and take care of your future."
outdoor6709
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
One of the major problems in U.S. these days is the right to free speech is limited. Those in power use the power to silence views they do no agree with. Look at the Climate Gate scandal. Authors who did not agree with the government positions were denied grants, could not get their research peer reviewed, could not get tenure, were denied jobs. The press is has taken one side in the issue and will not honestly discuss the issue. Politicians say the issue is settled and cannot be debated. Politicians what more money (cap & trade as a government tax base). The left says the right wants dirty air and dirty water because it works politically. It is not true 98% of climatetologists agree with man made global warming. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/09/13/the-98-climate-consensus-where-did-the-number-come-from/
NoSUVforMe
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:38 a.m.
As the most censored poster on AnnArbor.com, will the moderator please shut own this thread? The explosion of sheer anti global warming STUPIDITY is embarrassing. Who would have thought that Ann Arbor has so many morons?
DonBee
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
NoSUVforMe - Once again you are name calling. Not a great way to get people on your side of the discussion. Thoughtful, reasoned, discussion with respect for others is the only way to make a difference. One person at a time usually works best.
Basic Bob
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:49 a.m.
I guess I'm agnostic when it comes to global climate change. Maybe it's true, perhaps not. But it's generally a good idea to not waste stuff that we run out of - energy, natural resources, food and water. But if there is anything embarrassing in all of this, it is the idea that Warren, Irwin, and Zemke are either able or prepared to do anything about it. They should start off by reducing their use of hair spray.
outdoor6709
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 2:39 a.m.
Westfringe, Exactly what are the billions in "subsitites" that the oil companies get or is this just a talking point?
P. J. Murphy
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 5:25 a.m.
Just type "oil subsidies" or "energy subsidies" into Google. Wikipedia has a good article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
Used to be, the Scientific Method was the standard for establishing what's known and unknown. Now: it's entirely shifted into the hands of propagandists (aka, "ad agencies") and political campaign "managers" (aka, Information Managers). Result: the public (aka, non-scientists) doesn't even trust scientists because they've seen that propaganda has invaded everything. We decide according to which kind of propaganda pleases us and satisfies our personal ticks most successfully. Thus is national policy set - amid angry distrustful discourse which settles only who has the best political quips and personal attack strategy. This is why: there is so much controversy over such things as the dangers of Global Warming. (Or the "necessity" for gun control.) The majority of voters have been seduced into abandoning the very basis for accurate knowledge. Party propagandists have undermined everything which threatens the imaginary world they are trying to sell every man, woman and child in America. It is the propagandists who control what the news media reports - truths and facts are now whatever the propagandists say they are. "News" is now composed mostly of opinion, with news organizations paying big bucks to "opinion makers" whose sole attribute is to be entertaining rather than informative. And here we are - again - "debating" whether Global Warming is even truthful - when - no one even knows what standard to use. It's just "Democrats know the truth" and "No, Republicans know the truth." -when in fact both kinds of propaganda masters specialize in lies and deception. NEITHER knows the truth - and they are bent on seeing we don't either.
DonBee
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
TruBlu76 - It used to be that scientists had an unbiased mechanism for funding. Grants were made on merit, not on what school of thought the scientist belonged to. It used to be that the peer reviews for magazines were an important part of a scientist's job and they got credit for doing the reviews almost as much as for doing the research. Neither is true anymore, if you don't believe me go sit in the bar in the evening and listen to the scientists at a conference talk about how their community runs after they have had a drink. The tone of the conversation has changed so much in the last 20 years it is not funny.
outdoor6709
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 11:59 p.m.
Look at this chart from 2500 BC to now. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie Or look at Dr. Roy Specer's work. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:40 p.m.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle." Maybe the three politicians will watch this movie and realize how badly they have been fooled. Then do the right thing and denounce it. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYtevF4B4RtQ
martini man
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:21 p.m.
What actually could these lawmakers do that would really reverse so called Human Induced Climatic Disruption ?? They talk in generalities . How much authority would they actually need to take away enough of our freedoms to accomplish their goals ? Restrict use of electricity , water, travel, what we eat, what we drink ?? Would we be able to have AC's in the summer ? Could we own a SUV or truck ? Would the rest of the world fall in line behind these Ann Arbor liberals ?? Would even the rest of Michigan fall in line ? Would higher taxes really reverse climate change ? Could wind mills power up the U of M ? How about Flint or Detroit ? What could these liberals really do to save the planet besides just spout left wing propaganda ? Would $5.00 or even $10.00 per gallon fuel prices, really help the folks struggling to make ends meet ??? Lots of questions ...tell me Becky ..and your two cohorts ..how would this work ???
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:31 p.m.
martini, Their intention is to destroy jobs and the middle class. It makes far more sense if you see it in this perspective.
leaguebus
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:06 p.m.
I read most of these comments and the only people that presented any evidence to back up their opinions were the ones that believe man has accelerated the warming process. I wonder why?
mavfunn
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 7:04 p.m.
The reason is because only one side uses facts. The science is already in on anthropogenic climate change; and some want to stick their heads in the sand (like with evolution). The other side relies on ignorance and fear while posting to British tabloids and making petty political comments that have no relevance. These are people who are almost always on the opposite side of science, whether it's evolution, human sexuality, or climatology. I guess facts have a "liberal" bias.
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:26 p.m.
Here you go leaguebus. NO GLOABAL WARMING FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS. Thus, sky is not falling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:52 p.m.
The whole man-made global warming fearmongering is to shut down more of our manufacturing industry to transfer more jobs to countries like China where there are no environmental regulations. Why don't you "lawmakers" demand China, India, and Mexico clean up their acts instead of picking on US manufacturers? Haven't the Democrats and Republican have done enough to destroy good paying manufacturing jobs here in the US? Isn't NAFTA, CAFTA GATT, and other "free trade" agreements enough. How many more jobs do you want to destroy? Look at Detroit. You guys are evil.
Superior Twp voter
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:52 p.m.
Unmitigated tripe.
Piledriver
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.
Although I believe in climate change, I believe it can be greatly reduced simply by politicians keeping grandstanding mouths' shut, thus greatly reducing hot air emmissions.
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:41 p.m.
Where is the scientific evidence humans are causing global warming? Global temperatures have remained unchanged for the past 16 years.
Peregrine
Tue, Feb 19, 2013 : 2:29 a.m.
@G. Orwell: I can't help but notice that when I provided information (a link to a video) to refute your claim humans aren't causing "global warming" because, "global temperatures have remained unchanged for the last 16 years," you abandoned your point. Instead you made a different claim about the cyclical nature of temperatures over a 420,000 year period. Also, you state, "The cyclicality is a HUGE clue that AGW is a natural process." You do realize that AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming and that "Anthropogenic" means human-caused? So you're essentially claiming that human-caused global warming is a non-human-caused process. So now I'm wondering whether you are producing satire like your namesake. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -- The real George Orwell
G. Orwell
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 3:54 a.m.
Peregrine, If you look at the temperature data going back 420,000 years, you will see that we have had warmer periods and it is very cyclical. What caused the past warming periods and how is it so cyclical. The cyclicality is a HUGE clue that AGW is a natural process. Look at the chart below. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/global-warming-from-co2-all-politics-no-science/
Peregrine
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
If you have two minutes, watch this informative video: http://tinyurl.com/avjykld It addresses the issue of whether there has been any human-influenced temperature trends in the last 16 years.
P. J. Murphy
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:20 p.m.
G. Actually I do think. That's why I try and avoid is mucking around in politically-tinged trashbins when I'm looking for data on a serious question. I did read the Daily Mail article, which was journeyman political tripe, containing no serious documentation and lots of opinions and conclusions. Vintage spin, not designed to inform, but to politically motivate. Did you bother to look at Westfringe's data?
G. Orwell
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.
P. J. If you were smart, you would look at who and what information the Daily Mail is citing. Does Phil Jones deny the temperature graph shown? What happened to the hockey stick curve? Think.
P. J. Murphy
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 4:56 a.m.
Which authority should one take seriously on climate change, NOAA or a British tabloid? The publication cited here, the Daily Mail, has a long and distinctly yellow tradition of being a sounding board of the British right. If this is the best that can be offered to refute a long list of reputable scientific sources I'd say it's not really much of a debate. On the other hand, if you like your news predigested, packaged and spun to conform with a personal bias, it's as good as any other rag. What does the National Enquirer have to say on this matter?
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:02 p.m.
@Westfringe Your wrong. If you were up to date on the latest information, you would know that the temperature data used were manipulated. There never was a hockeystick curve. it was all made up. Here is the admission by the MET Office that the global temperatures have NOT changed during the past 16 years. Anyone paying attention would have known this. I guess you've been deceived. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:10 p.m.
Wrong. Here is a multitude of evidence stating the direct opposite. The data is clear. Will you follow facts or propaganda Orwell? Nasa surface temp analysis: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ CRU direct surface temp analysis: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ Satellite temp data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements Radiosondes: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html Borehole analysis: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html Glacial melt analysis: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html Sea ice melt: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html Sea level rise: http://sealevel.colorado.edu Proxy reconstructions: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html Permafrost melt: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
Once again the most scientific illiterate, anti-regulation, pro-corporate portion of society thinks they more than an OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS of scientists. They belong to the same groups that call for teaching "intelligent" design in our public schools. Climate change (by the way we call it that now because many ignoramuses cannot make the connection between erratic weather and a warming climate) is happening. We need to act now if we want to protect our futures from extreme events. Good job to all the A2 lawmakers who realize this.
leaguebus
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:50 p.m.
Doug, cite the research that proves your point. It's easy to talk.
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:18 p.m.
It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, a fact is a fact. Bogus junk? Where is your data? Whens the last time you studied anything remotely to do with science? Do you even know what the scientific method is?
Doug
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:47 p.m.
Read the real research, not the bogus junk you call consensus. But you won't. You'll just follow the pied piper like all the rest of the liberals.
Rita Mitchell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
Thank you, Representatives Irwin, Warren, and Zemke for taking a stand to support our environment and for pointing out the scientific support for the changes we are seeing. The climate is changing, and we all participate in the process. Our choices contribute to, or reduce the overall effect, and its time to be thoughtful about the resources that we share among ourselves and with our ecosystem.
KJMClark
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:08 p.m.
The deniers are well-funded: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network "Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science." But, "In his view, Brulle said: "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg." Let's just hope this drought doesn't go on much longer: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ As of this past week, we're still abnormally dry and the plains are still in an "Exceptional" drought.
G. Orwell
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 3:58 a.m.
Alarmists are even better funded, by a huge margin, with billions from our government.
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:02 p.m.
The simplest minds are the easiest to buy.
JGTRUEBLUE
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 7:55 p.m.
Global warming. Translation = brain frying
Jake C
Tue, Feb 19, 2013 : 5:06 a.m.
Yep, believing in global warming / climate change is truly a "left-wing eco-terror fringe" position, one held by 68% of the American public: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/global-warming-poll-climate-change_n_2105600.html
Superior Twp voter
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:47 p.m.
At fringe- you truly are way out there on the left-wing eco-terror fringe.
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:01 p.m.
Global warming denier. Translation = ignorant conservative.
observer
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
the three of together could not find their way out of a brown paper bag.....
Clay Moore
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 7:13 p.m.
I predict that the weather tomorrow will be different than the weather was yesterday. That should be enough incentive for all climate change alarmists to start flapping their left wings and head to the "Chicken Little Sky is Falling" rally. The fact that the earth has endured several Ice Ages, Polarity Reversals, Magnetic shifts, Volcano's, Meteor Impacts (that wiped out the dinosaurs, Earthquakes, dramatic increases in Sunspot radiation, massive Solar Eruptions, changes in earths rotation and solar orbit etc. mean nothing. Man and man alone is responsible for climate cooling or is it climate warming or, I remember now ..... climate change. Geeze, this is what happens when government supported climatologists get in bed with the politicians who want more tax money to spend and opportunists like George Soros who wants to regulate and sell "Carbon Tax Credits".
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 11:57 p.m.
@Clay - we agree that the Earth has already experienced all sorts of climate changes. We can just ask the dinosaurs. Oh, wait - they're DEAD from the climate changes.
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:19 p.m.
@Westfringe If you include the timeline to Al Gore's famous and fraudulent hockey stick curve, it becomes obvious that the CO2 levels FOLLOW, not LEAD temperature levels. That is why Al Gore purposely and deceptively left out the timeline at the bottom. Thus, CO2 does not lead to higher global temperatures. Also, look at the curve based on the Vostok ice core samples. See something that looks very CYCLICAL? http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9 p.m.
If this bout of climate change is natural Clay, what is driving it? Why is a 35% increase in CO2 (the second most important greenhouse gas) not affecting the global temperature?. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening? Enlighten me Clay, do you have any answers beyond political jabs against George Soros?
observer
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 7:10 p.m.
and what are the three of them going to do about it....just another "safe" statement by them, which in a week or so will mean nothing......worry about something that concerns our state... and there are many of those....
outdoor6709
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 6:26 p.m.
Lets face it. Green Energy is about political power and feeding government $'s to freinds. Read the list. A company from China ended up with A123 a company that had technology with Military satelitte implications. Read the list, look at Al Gores increased wealth. http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/2012/10/green-alert-tracking-president-obamas.html#.UR1p_lqgkVn
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:55 p.m.
Once again I bring up the topic of the billions in subsidies given to extremely profitable oil companies by bought out Republican politicians. How about Haliburton in Iraq? How about the rampant corporate welfare? You have no legs to stand on.
Stephen Landes
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:48 p.m.
This is just three politicians searching for relevance and not finding it. I suppose if man-made climate change was real and if these three were very successful we could usher in the next glacial advance, reintroduce mastodons, and start a new fur coat industry.
Indymama
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.
What a waste of their and consequently, our time!!! Why are we paying these people????
dsponini
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 7:04 p.m.
Your demographic IS dying off....slowly but surely
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:51 p.m.
Because they were voted in by people who care about more than just abortion and gun control. Your demographic is dying.
Ricardo Queso
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5 p.m.
The trioka speaks!
C. Montgomery Burns
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.
The solution to global warming is to build more nuclear plants! Oh, yes, and to also "release the hounds" on these blowhard politicians.
Dog Guy
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
Lead by Zemke, Irwin, and Warren, the Michigan legislature should outlaw both global warming and climate change in our state. Scientific truth has always and everywhere been managed by polls, consensuses, decrees, grants, and legislation. Is is high time that Mother Nature learned who's boss in Michigan.
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:06 p.m.
@Westfringe Here we go with the name calling. It always happens when people cannot win an argument based on facts. How childish.
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:49 p.m.
How are the "we didn't land on the moon" and "9/11 was an inside job" clubs going Dog Guy?
walker101
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
Another in a long list of Obama-touted and tax-supported "green energy" companies is on the verge of going out of business,in Michigan LG Chem manufacturing, along with A123 systems goes that goes to China after filing bankruptcy and countless of other government funded projects and yet these so called environmentalists have no clue but to support and grant more tax dollars to failed projects and the left continues to support these individuals by for the sake of a greener planet that every other country continues to ignore. How about investigating these companies that have failed to deliver before we invest in another ridiculous venture.
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:48 p.m.
How about reporting on how we give billions in tax subsidies to gigantic extremely profitable oil companies? How about investigating how the GOP blocked attempts to repeal these subsidies while spouting concern over our ballooning debt?
David Paris
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
Thank you Adam, Rebekah, and Jeff, for doing the right thing... keep up the good work!
Basic Bob
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.
When they actually do some "thing" or "work", we can decide if it's right. For know, all we have been given is empty talk.
observer
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.
hey Dave, why don't you join them.......the four of you will certainly find a solution.....ya right
martini man
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 3:37 p.m.
These folks are LIBERALS and this has more to do with power, regulation, and control , rather than global warming. Or I guess the new term might be Human Induced Climatic Disruption. This would pretty much cover ANYTHING that happens weatherwise . This is a perfect platform on which to base any new law or regulation, affecting all aspects of our lives. And if these liberals get their way, which just might happen, since the federal government is controled by like minded leftists, their power would be far reaching. And IF their actions do not stop climate change ( and the chances are they won't ) they will still have the control and power over our lives at a level never before seen in America. It's much more than just a bunch of Ann Arbor liberals ... It's a federal government poised to act, on a national scale.
Superior Twp voter
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:33 p.m.
Well done, m-m. Exactly. It's about power and control.
EyeHeartA2
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.
Becky showing Adam how to grandstand. How cute.
outdoor6709
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
I am sure these three politicians do their part. Rumor is they take the bus from AA to Lansing on work days, all live in 800 sq ft houses and are vegitarians. The reallity is these three exploit everyones need to feel like they make a difference. Cap & Trade will raise th cost of energy. As our president sid on campaign trail, " the cost of energy will necessarily skyrocket".
Indymama
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.
...and who wants to go back to the 1800's with windmills and underground wells to draw your water from? My family...(Grandparents and Aunts & Uncles) all had windmills & wells,,,no running water....no self flushing toilets,,,they had "outhouses" really warm (NOT) in the winter!! Who would be crazy enough to want to return to those days???
Ken
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
These three state lawmakers have fallen for the kook science of global warming. They also are worshiping at the altar of Al (Jazeera) Gore, maiking millions, if not billions of dollars off this swindle of American businesses and taxpayers. Just look what it's costing Boeing for installing lithium ion batteries (the darling of the environmental crowd) in the new 787 Dreamliner (better named 787 Nightmare), instead of using nickel metal hydride battery packs, all to save a few mandated pounds of weight in the aircraft. Do not forget, we have Al Jazeera Gore to thank for inventing the Internet.
Peregrine
Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 3:08 a.m.
@Joe: Al Gore never said he "created" the internet. The reason why I *asked* you about those three quotes was because you implied that given the information was on Wikipedia, it could therefore not be used to bolster a point. I countered by focusing on three specifics in the article and asking you whether you were claiming they were false. That you for establishing that you accept their validity. I honestly don't see the extremism in that. And I would like to point out that by asking you questions it's hard to make the claim that I was trying to silence you. On the other hand, when on person expresses an opinion and another attempts to refute that opinion with well-established facts, the latter is hoping that the former will at least think twice before expressing those off-base opinions in the future. And perhaps there is a sense in which that is, "tryng to silence others opinions". Although if the other is truly interested in an "honest debate", they would welcome relevant facts being brought into the debate.
Joe
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 11:44 p.m.
Yes Peregrine you are correct in that Gore never said he "invented" the internet but he did use "created" instead. I'm glad you pointed out the huge diffence in those two words. Also, I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that I claimed or suggested anything about what Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Newt Gingrich & Wolf Blitzer said. You created that controversy on your own. It was to point out how you are refuting facts as false while using Wikipedia to do it. Your reactions are pretty typical of angry extremists tryng to silence others opinions than have an honest debate.
Peregrine
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
@a2citizen: Yes, that is what he said, which is a true statement. The rest of the article, including the quotes from others involved, clearly demonstrates his prescience and efforts.
a2citizen
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:46 a.m.
Peregrine, you left out one very important statement from the article you sourced: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." I will let you and others re-interpret what Gore said.
Peregrine
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.
@Joe: OK, when did Al Gore claim he "invented" the internet? Do you have a date & location? Are you claiming that Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn did not write: "As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high-speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1993. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises." Are you claiming Newt Gingrich did not say: "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is -- and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a 'futures group' -- the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen." Are you suggesting that Wolf Blitzer didn't say: "I didn't ask him about the Internet. I asked him about the differences he had with Bill Bradley [...] Honestly, at the time, when he said it, it didn't dawn on me that this was going to have the impact that it wound up having, because it was distorted to a certain degree and people said they took what he said, which was a carefully phrased comment about taking the initiative and creating the Internet to—I invented the
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:44 p.m.
Wow, awesome combination of anti-science and anti-muslim propaganda in one statement.
Joe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.
Since Al Gore created the internet I'm sure he could alter any information he wanted on Wikipedia. Oh wait!! Anyone can edit or add information on Wikipedia so that must make the information fact- right Peregrine?
Peregrine
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 6:05 p.m.
Hey, that's really clever -- "Al Jazeera Gore". You must be very proud of yourself. Oh, and "787 Nightmare" -- wow! I bet you can come up with these all day long. Of course Al Gore never said he invented the internet. There's an extensive wikipedia article on that whole manufactured controversy if facts should ever be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology .
walker101
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
Lets buy more trash from other countries besides Canada, what a bunch of hypocrites, concerned about global warming and yet for a few dollars they want Michigan a dumping ground all for the love of money, Michigan Beatiful, yeah right on.
Doug
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:46 p.m.
It's the sun, sun, sun! Do some simple research and you'll find that the sun is the main factor influencing the earth's climate. The amount of the sun's energy that reaches the earth's surface is a complex formula involving things. People's activities are not among them.
DonBee
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
Westfringe - Turn off the sun and the earth will cool, I promise you this is true and no real scientist will disagree. This is one truth we can all agree on.
Doug
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:37 a.m.
Westfringe, I appreciate your response but respectfully disagree .
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:43 p.m.
Wrong again Doug. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed. http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/
Billy
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.
As someone who's routinely looked at the actual data of climate change.....yes it's blown WAY out of proportion...and they have actually LIED several times about the data to make it seem MUCH worse than it really was. Yes the planet is warming...and there IS an increase in the warming trend since man came along with industry. But the actual change is incredibly minuscule and has been repeatedly misrepresented. If someone is screaming at you that global warming is man's fault then you can be assured they definitely don't know what they're talking about.
leaguebus
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 9:42 p.m.
Other people who have made comments on the other side of this issue have shown their sources. Show yours.
Doug
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:37 p.m.
Ditto Indymama
Indymama
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.
Billy, AMEN!! You are so correct! Well said.
Meme Mine
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.
Get up to date losers: Climate Blame believers still have pagers, PalmPilots and AOL accounts and look like the last fella ever to show up to the party still dressed in full Disco duds. *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations. *In all of the debates Obama hadn't planned to mention climate change once. *Obama had not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses until now. *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier. *Canada's voters had already killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially you fear mongers and the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE had condemned our kids to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated "crisis" and had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run "CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS" to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 27 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.
ussubmariner
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
Everyone knows that global warming is caused by all the people shooting unlimited capacity magazines from their auto-matic assault weapons. That statement is just as true as the voodoo science they quote in these articles. Just as we are dying from the day we are born, the ice is melting also.
GoNavy
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 6:14 p.m.
Brad- *So what* if water levels rise. Punch up "geographic history of the Earth* on your Google machine and you'll find that things change. I'm sitting in a spot right now that used to be covered in a mile of ice - I'm sure glad it isn't here any more. Not only that, but when that ice melted, it created a few beautiful lakes around my state - not too shabby. I'm not concerned that the residents of Malibu may one day be under water, or that Death Valley might turn into the Amazon basin in a million years. That's because I have a sense of scientific perspective. You should try it out -
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
Let me get this straight - your position is that global warming to the extent that would melt glaciers will not cause any rise in water levels? That analogy might be OK for icebergs, but the glaciers aren't floating in water. And if the temps rise the water will expand, too.
Billy
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
Fill a glass up full of ice.....now top it off with some water. When the ice melts does the water level rise?
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2 p.m.
OK, so if all the ice is in a perpetual state of melting don't you think the water levels might rise at some point? And why is all the ice suddenly starting to melt? Think it just might have something to do with the temperature? I hope those people that choose for the "smartest cities" lists aren't reading today.
4Bells
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
All of this political hot air and methane can't be helping our climate. Instead of trying to change the weather, how about fixing all of the worsening Michigan state government problems that continue to plague us?
Bablat
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:25 p.m.
Voting for these clowns is a waste of energy.
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.
Our lawmakers plan on fighting Mother Nature? Please don't waste anymore taxpayer funds. We cannot afford the trillions of dollars.
Atlas Shrugged
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
You hit the nail on the head: These cooling and warming cycles are the result of "mother nature," and of course it's folly to think one can legislate against that. Too often we've seen headlines about breaking a daily high temperature record set in the 1800s, the early part of the 20th century, or whatever. How many cars or jet planes or other modern alleged contributors to "global warming" were there back then? The answer is obvious, of course. It's all a bunch of leftist "do-gooder" hand-wringing. Makes 'em feel good that they're "doing something."
Karen
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
Could they please focus on managing this city first? Is this an Obama-"esque" distractor to divert attention from their poor record of spending?
Indymama
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:19 p.m.
Karen, I agree! This is a distractor to keep the low information voters on edge and "in the pockets of the Democrats", so they will continue to vote for the very people (Democrats) who want to take away the American freedoms our Country was based on!!
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Since they are state legislators and in no way responsible for "managing this city" why would you even ask such a question? Well, other than to make a nonsequitur jab at the president.
a2citizen
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
Thank-you, Karen.
northside
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:50 p.m.
Few things are more depressing than reading comments about global warming on a newspaper site. Ignorance sure likes to speak and speak loudly.
Living in A2
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:25 p.m.
My thoughts exactly.
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
That's because people tend to ignore what they say and so they think they're just not talking loudly enough.
thinker
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
It is hubris to think that what we do can affect the general warming and cooling cycles on this planet. It has been proven that MAN-MADE global warming does not exist. That is not to say that we are not entering a warm cycle. We cannot change that by our own efforts. It is a political tool.
Peregrine
Tue, Feb 19, 2013 : 3:14 a.m.
@G. Orwell: You stated: "All the temperature data were manipulated. Admits Phil Jones." And I looked in your link to find that, and I didn't. And your answer doesn't show me where he says that. Are you abandoning that point? Now, to get to your quote from the article I linked to, I don't think you're quite getting the point they're making. There are long-term trends, which many claim are due in part to human activities. On top of that there are short-term variations, which makes the graph very "wiggly". El Niño pushes temperatures up. La Niña pushes temperatures down. Volcanic eruptions push temperatures down. Spikes in solar activity push temperatures up. So if you pick two points in time, and draw a line between them, the slope will depend in part on these short-term variations. So if as your earlier point you pick a moment when El Niño activity has already raised temperatures you will end up with a shallower slope than if you were to pick a moment when La Niña activity has already lowered temperature. It turns out your claim that there is no apparent human-caused greenhouse warming over the last sixteen years hinges on the fact that we were in the middle of one of the strongest El Ninos in 1997/1998 at your chosen early point in time. If you subtract out the effect of El Niño you will see that the rate of baseline temperature increases has been essentially the same over the last 35 years. To see this graphically, this 2-minute video does a great job: http://tinyurl.com/avjykld This NOAA slide presentation on El Niño and La Niña shows that the 1997/1998 El Niño effect was one of the largest in recent times: http://tinyurl.com/z7jr4
G. Orwell
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.
@Peregrine again Where is the hockey stick curve? .05C increase is not a hockey stick curve. Unless you severely distort the graph parameters. Quote from your link, http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."
G. Orwell
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 5:24 p.m.
@Peregrine If Prof. Jones does not deny the new graph/data, then he is denying the past temperature data. If you are not convinced (I know it is very difficult to have a paradigm shift), here you go. Quote, "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon." "And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Peregrine
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
Let me provide one more link that addresses the point the G. Orwell's linked article: http://tinyurl.com/avjykld . It's a video in which they separates out the various contributing factors to average global temperature over 16 years.
Peregrine
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 4:18 p.m.
@G. Orwell: I read the article, looked for every reference to Phil Jones, and could not find where he stated the numbers were manipulated. Can you copy/paste that section? Second, the Met Office has taken issue with the claims that the article's author, David Rose, has made on multiple occasions, including the very article you provided a link for. Here are two of their responses: * http://tinyurl.com/9sofaxv * http://tinyurl.com/7hr5zbn
thinker
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 3:10 a.m.
@Westfringe-I said MANMADE climate change. It's obvious the planet is going through one of its cycles, which takes place over centuries. Do you really think what you do is going to change that? @G.Orwell. Thanks. I read that quite awhile ago. There's much more evidence than that too. @Rachel Resin- Of course I think we should keep our air and water clean, to make the planet more pleasant, healthy and comfortable for us all. Do I think we'll affect climate change? No.
G. Orwell
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 10:46 p.m.
thinker is right. All the temperature data were manipulated. Admits Phil Jones. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
Westfringe
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.
Thinker how do you know this? Are you studied in the science of climate in any way? In the past billions (not 6k as you probably believe) of years in earths history warming/cooling trends have took thousands of years to produce what we are recording. Right now our climate is changing much much faster then that.We can and do radically change Earth by our actions daily. Your views are the political ones, not the facts of climate change.
Peregrine
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:59 p.m.
Usually when someone says something has been "proven", they cite their source. Here's some actual evidence -- a popular press article and the data summary: * http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7 * http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
Rachel Resin
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 5:27 p.m.
It's also hubris to think that people can do whatever they like, with no harmful effects to their shared living space. Even if you dispute global warming, unregulated industry and unlimited personal vehicles make the world an uglier place in other ways (with pollution of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the views we enjoy). If you see global warming as a political tool, I see pushes for de-regulation as corporate agendas, sold to people as issues of "freedom" and "choice." These are the profiteering groups trying to get away with making your tap water undrinkable and your stars unseeable. Why be their mouthpiece? Just my two cents.
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
Did you see that "proof" on Fox News, Newsmax or WND?
Living in A2
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
Thinker, I would recommend thinking about that a bit more.
A2comments
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:57 p.m.
Balderdash!
cibachrome
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
They could take personall responsibility and stop the blabbering about global issues when there is plenty of grunt work that could be done in their own backyard. A visit to China;s 3 worst poluting cities would show them how hollow their comments are. Of course, the middle class jobs that were once here, allowing citizens to have a comfortable standard of living are now all in those 3 Chineses cities, so they should congratulate themselves for their accomplishments so far. But, enough is enough.
gerald brennan
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.
If these folks would confine the evidence that forms their opinion to peer-reviewed studies only, they may conclude that the humans-cause-global-warming scare is far from a consensus view. But what does evidence have to do with a good cause to exploit?
DonBee
Sun, Feb 17, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
Brad - That kind of comment is what causes the lack of compromise and movement on this issue. If you call the other side names, don't expect they will be willing to work with you on anything.
Brad
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:55 p.m.
Even crazy climate deniers have peer-reviewed studies. It's just that their peers are crazy as well.
Living in A2
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
Mind posting some of these studies you mention?
tdw
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 11:48 a.m.
Blah blah blah.Outside of the Emerald City no one cares what Ann Arbor thinks or calls for
AMOC
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 : 12:25 p.m.
Wouldn't the land of Maize and Blue be more of a Saphire City? You're right though. The poll is badly worded and the results are irrelevant.