If Al Gore Is Right And Temps Increase By 5 Degrees

[bonobo]

 

Any of the Honda, Toyota, or Ford hybrids currently being used would have that effect.  I guess that would also include the Mercedes, although this report I read was written before the Mercedes was available.

I would assume the calculations were based on switching every available engine in use for the same output hybrid engine, not making calcualtions based on everyone switching to a Prius.

Please be more specific as to how they are powered and how this power if electric is generated or if fuel cell powered how the hydrogen is produced. The Prius as one example is a total joke, yes I saw you said "not the Prius"

There are a few various alternatives on the drawing board, and some are scheduled to come out in 2011.  But using existing technology, that would limit us to the gas/electric hybrids using electric capture technology to generate the electricity.  Everytime the car is braked, that braking action recharges the battery.  The electricity is then used to move the car at low speeds and to provide a boost at high speeds.  These cars also turn completely off when the car is stopped such as at a stoplight.  

THere was also one interesting study done on these hybrids.  People who own them tend to exaggerate efficient driving techniques.  All tehse cars have readouts which indicate mileage and efficiency.  Poeple tend to do everything to make that number get better and better.  The feelign is that people tend to maximize their reasons for buying a car.  A person who buys a Lamborghini might rev his engine at stoplights and make jackrabbit starts. A person who buys a FOrd Crecab Dually might carry loads in the bed which he or she does not really need. In that vein, a person who buys a hybrid for environmental or economical reasons will be apt to try and push that envelope.

Even the complete electric cars generally have a smaller carbon footprint than their gas counterparts.  It depends on the method of electrical generation.  But most modern electrical generation plants are far cleaner than a gas-powerd car for a given amount of energy.

[bonobo]

I think we should destroy more of our National Parks in the US and put in those wind powered bird killers.

What, pray tell, do wind turbines have to do with national parks? All teh turbins I have seen in Europe and the US are on private or public protpery, but no parkland. And if a raptor or two gets killed in teh turbins, well, polution kills far more wildlife, so in my humlbe opinion, that is an acceptable trade off.

I have also read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi and her husband have a very large investment in them. Why should Al Gore be the only one to get rich off this scam?

Why ignore the issue because you don't like the messenger?  I am sorry, but if my worst enemy came running out of the building saying it is on fire, I am not going back to my desk just because I don't like him.

Hate the messenger all you want. Al Gore did not come up with global warming as some sort of illicit scheme. He listened to accepted science and decided to become a spokesman for the issue.  

Refusing to hear the message because you don't like the messenger is pretty childish.  Some naysayers do think they have science to refute global warming.  I think these people are misguided, but at least they are using their brains.  But people who naysay global warming because Al Gore is somehow now the embodiment of it, well, that is really plain foolish.

Edited May 12, 2009 by bonobo

[SoCal]

Bonobo,

I don't think many people would disagree with you:

1) Humans have a negative impact on the environment.

The problem lies in to what degree the impact, humans impact vs natures impact, and saving nature at what cost?

2) Green technology, and advanced technology should be maximized.

The question again would be cost, both economical, and what we as humans may view as our inherent right to choose.

As far as shooting the messenger, I am sorry to say, that most "greenies" should be shot, and I am not just singling out Al Gore. These are the people who seek to control the lives of the masses, while they are free to fly their private jets, own multiple homes, drive gas guzzlers, and don't want wind mills built two miles off shore because it will somehow ruin their beautiful skyline.

These people do not want to save the earth. They want to save their lifestyle, at the cost of everyone else.

Take these "role models" out of the discussion, come up with less costly/invasive technologies, provide a basic/fundamental education on the subject, and I am sure more people would opt to be green.

[JR Texas]

Bonobo,

I don't think many people would disagree with you:

1) Humans have a negative impact on the environment.

The problem lies in to what degree the impact, humans impact vs natures impact, and saving nature at what cost?

2) Green technology, and advanced technology should be maximized.

The question again would be cost, both economical, and what we as humans may view as our inherent right to choose.

As far as shooting the messenger, I am sorry to say, that most "greenies" should be shot, and I am not just singling out Al Gore. These are the people who seek to control the lives of the masses, while they are free to fly their private jets, own multiple homes, drive gas guzzlers, and don't want wind mills built two miles off shore because it will somehow ruin their beautiful skyline.

These people do not want to save the earth. They want to save their lifestyle, at the cost of everyone else.

Take these "role models" out of the discussion, come up with less costly/invasive technologies, provide a basic/fundamental education on the subject, and I am sure more people would opt to be green.

A few questions for thought:

Is it possible that the MNCs that dominate the "oil industry" are interested in controlling the lives of the masses?

Why is there almost no discussion about the impact that high oil prices had on the current global economic decline?

Do you think there is a connection between "big oil" and the mainstream mass media worldwide?

Is it possible that all of us--Greenies and non-Greenies--are self-interested pig dogs not worthy of the name Homo sapiens sapiens?

"Excuse me........I'm due back on planet earth."

[Jingthing]

Well, lets just watch Rome burn, shall we?

Human nature seems to respond very well to crises when the crises are staring them in the face, such as an encounter with a grizzly bear or a blow torch under your arse.

This global warming business, if the hated Al Gore is right, and the neanderthal big-Mac/Hummer/rapture lovin' right wingers are wrong, will escalate sooner than you think to the blow torch level. But you won't be able to run. You won't be able to throw water on it. By the time your booty is sweating, it will be way too late to do anything to stop it. The fire will just get bigger and hotter and you might as well start preparing the spicy sauces for your arse kebabs.

Lets get into the fun of it!

Sure am glad I don't have kids ...

Edited May 12, 2009 by Jingthing

[sabaijai]

Is it possible that all of us--Greenies and non-Greenies--are self-interested pig dogs not worthy of the name Homo sapiens sapiens?

This often crosses my mind, or at least a related question: Is the human species worth saving? I think most people would vote yes. Me I'd abstain

[Jingthing]

I think most people would vote yes.

Interesting question.

Yes, most would vote yes for the public record. But with our collective ACTIONS, we are clearly voting NO, we only care about our own little piggy selfish interests. That's just the way we are. Yes, even Al Gore is probably that way too, that big old pig. But he still may be right on the science. Life is complex that way sometimes, yes it is ...

Edited May 12, 2009 by Jingthing

[canuckamuck]

Self loathing, the inescapable final destination of liberal thought.

[Jingthing]

Self loathing, the inescapable final destination of liberal thought.

Oh, its not limited to ourselves, sir.

The final destination of right wing thought: planetary self destruction.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Jingthing

[Texpat]

Self loathing, the inescapable final destination of liberal thought.

Beautiful.

Pay for your sins Jing. They are many.

Pay me, cause I don't suffer that affliction.

[Jingthing]

Sins? Not in my vocabulary, brudder.

[bonobo]

Bonobo,

I don't think many people would disagree with you:

1) Humans have a negative impact on the environment.

The problem lies in to what degree the impact, humans impact vs natures impact, and saving nature at what cost?

2) Green technology, and advanced technology should be maximized.

The question again would be cost, both economical, and what we as humans may view as our inherent right to choose.

As far as shooting the messenger, I am sorry to say, that most "greenies" should be shot, and I am not just singling out Al Gore. These are the people who seek to control the lives of the masses, while they are free to fly their private jets, own multiple homes, drive gas guzzlers, and don't want wind mills built two miles off shore because it will somehow ruin their beautiful skyline.

These people do not want to save the earth. They want to save their lifestyle, at the cost of everyone else.

Take these "role models" out of the discussion, come up with less costly/invasive technologies, provide a basic/fundamental education on the subject, and I am sure more people would opt to be green.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  

I don't think it is "greenies," however, who don't want windmills off their Montauk shores.  True "greeneis" tend to sacrafice some of the niceties of life in order to follow their green religion, just as people of all religions tend to sacrafice.

Hypocrites are not my favorite people, either, and Al Gore's choice in automobiles does deserve scrutiny, in my opinion.  But that does not take away from the need to do what we can to lessen the impact of global warming, where possible, and to basically clean up the way we live our lives.  

When I was young, you culd not swim in the Great lakes nor eat fish caught there.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire.  Now, those lakes and rivers are clean again, and they all contribute to the economic livlihood of the region.

"Right to choose" is also a difficult concept here.  Smoking, for example, is an individual choice, and if someone smokes at home, they are only hurting themselves (take away the arguement about tax dollars paying for medical expenses).  But someone who cuts all the trees from a watershed on his property then casues the stream to silt up and lose its ability to support fish stocks.  And it increases the chances of floods in the future.  So it is not that easy to get a grasp of the right to choose aspect of things.

[Electra]

Lets get one thing straight.

Al Gore is a COMMUNICATOR, not a scientist.

However, he speaks and communicates a MAINSTREAM message accepted by the vast majority of MAINSTREAM scientists.

Are scientists always right? No.

But whether you like Al Gore or not, or think he is a buffoon, or not, makes not one bit of difference about the validity of the global warming situation. Please try to separate emotion and politics from reality. Thank you.

....and please, try to separate ' reality ' from science.

The former is a perception, the latter an explanation.

[Texpat]

Some people just can't live comfortably with the tremendous sense of guilt and wish to share it with others.

And if you're not willing to accept your share of guilt, you're somehow sinister.

When that fatass Gore rides his bicycle to his next climate change conference, I'll start listening.

[JR Texas]

Bonobo,

I don't think many people would disagree with you:

1) Humans have a negative impact on the environment.

The problem lies in to what degree the impact, humans impact vs natures impact, and saving nature at what cost?

2) Green technology, and advanced technology should be maximized.

The question again would be cost, both economical, and what we as humans may view as our inherent right to choose.

As far as shooting the messenger, I am sorry to say, that most "greenies" should be shot, and I am not just singling out Al Gore. These are the people who seek to control the lives of the masses, while they are free to fly their private jets, own multiple homes, drive gas guzzlers, and don't want wind mills built two miles off shore because it will somehow ruin their beautiful skyline.

These people do not want to save the earth. They want to save their lifestyle, at the cost of everyone else.

Take these "role models" out of the discussion, come up with less costly/invasive technologies, provide a basic/fundamental education on the subject, and I am sure more people would opt to be green.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  

I don't think it is "greenies," however, who don't want windmills off their Montauk shores.  True "greeneis" tend to sacrafice some of the niceties of life in order to follow their green religion, just as people of all religions tend to sacrafice.

Hypocrites are not my favorite people, either, and Al Gore's choice in automobiles does deserve scrutiny, in my opinion.  But that does not take away from the need to do what we can to lessen the impact of global warming, where possible, and to basically clean up the way we live our lives.  

When I was young, you culd not swim in the Great lakes nor eat fish caught there.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire.  Now, those lakes and rivers are clean again, and they all contribute to the economic livlihood of the region.

"Right to choose" is also a difficult concept here.  Smoking, for example, is an individual choice, and if someone smokes at home, they are only hurting themselves (take away the arguement about tax dollars paying for medical expenses).  But someone who cuts all the trees from a watershed on his property then casues the stream to silt up and lose its ability to support fish stocks.  And it increases the chances of floods in the future.  So it is not that easy to get a grasp of the right to choose aspect of things.

We have never really been free. Why? Because we are selfish pig dogs.....in the genes. So, we make laws to protect ourselves from our inner selves.

Laws do work. Many years ago there was a big argument about cleaning up our gasoline.....removing toxic lead. People said it would cost jobs and hurt the economy, etc. But we did it......and the lead in the atmosphere declined dramatically.

But it took a law..........the companies had to be forced to act, not in their self interest, but in the interest of all and especially future generations.

We followed a similar path in terms of our approach to the ozone hole.......a total surprise that was not predicted by atmospheric scientists. Ozone destroying chemicals were banned.........the law in action.

Now we must do something similar on a global scale........introducing strict laws that promote more energy efficiency.

But there is something else we can do that nobody is talking about. I think it is time for the top physicists of the world to get together and come up with a new energy system that can solve our energy/economic problems once and for all.

There are models of what can be done to develop something novel: 1) Manhattan Project, 2) Apollo Project. Both of these projects began with little knowledge of how to reach the end game.........both succeeded.

Ironically, the knowledge that we gained from the Manhattan Project could actually, perhaps, result in the development of a totally new energy system........hopefully something safe that will not blow us to smitherines.....

[chuckd]

I think we should destroy more of our National Parks in the US and put in those wind powered bird killers.

What, pray tell, do wind turbines have to do with national parks? All teh turbins I have seen in Europe and the US are on private or public protpery, but no parkland. And if a raptor or two gets killed in teh turbins, well, polution kills far more wildlife, so in my humlbe opinion, that is an acceptable trade off.

I have also read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi and her husband have a very large investment in them. Why should Al Gore be the only one to get rich off this scam?

Why ignore the issue because you don't like the messenger?  I am sorry, but if my worst enemy came running out of the building saying it is on fire, I am not going back to my desk just because I don't like him.

Hate the messenger all you want. Al Gore did not come up with global warming as some sort of illicit scheme. He listened to accepted science and decided to become a spokesman for the issue.  

Refusing to hear the message because you don't like the messenger is pretty childish.  Some naysayers do think they have science to refute global warming.  I think these people are misguided, but at least they are using their brains.  But people who naysay global warming because Al Gore is somehow now the embodiment of it, well, that is really plain foolish.

Perhaps the liberal use of some smiley emoticons would make you realize the comments I make are more tongue in cheek than anything else.

Like this?

You tree huggers don't have much of a sense of humor.

What about the matter of methane gas being a large contributing factor to global warming? Animals (you know, cows, pigs, camels, elephants, those sort of things) emit quite a large amount of methane gas. Some scientists believe it to be more of a problem than what our SUV's emit.

So, could cow farts really be the core problem with global warming rather than my little Suzuki? Wonder if Al Gore has measured cow farts recently?

[JR Texas]

I think we should destroy more of our National Parks in the US and put in those wind powered bird killers.

What, pray tell, do wind turbines have to do with national parks? All teh turbins I have seen in Europe and the US are on private or public protpery, but no parkland. And if a raptor or two gets killed in teh turbins, well, polution kills far more wildlife, so in my humlbe opinion, that is an acceptable trade off.

I have also read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi and her husband have a very large investment in them. Why should Al Gore be the only one to get rich off this scam?

Why ignore the issue because you don't like the messenger?  I am sorry, but if my worst enemy came running out of the building saying it is on fire, I am not going back to my desk just because I don't like him.

Hate the messenger all you want. Al Gore did not come up with global warming as some sort of illicit scheme. He listened to accepted science and decided to become a spokesman for the issue.  

Refusing to hear the message because you don't like the messenger is pretty childish.  Some naysayers do think they have science to refute global warming.  I think these people are misguided, but at least they are using their brains.  But people who naysay global warming because Al Gore is somehow now the embodiment of it, well, that is really plain foolish.

Perhaps the liberal use of some smiley emoticons would make you realize the comments I make are more tongue in cheek than anything else.

Like this?

You tree huggers don't have much of a sense of humor.

What about the matter of methane gas being a large contributing factor to global warming? Animals (you know, cows, pigs, camels, elephants, those sort of things) emit quite a large amount of methane gas. Some scientists believe it to be more of a problem than what our SUV's emit.

So, could cow farts really be the core problem with global warming rather than my little Suzuki? Wonder if Al Gore has measured cow farts recently?

He talked about the methane problem in his book Earth in the Balance......many years ago. It is serious.......and the human population is growing along with a Western lifestyle where beef is growing in importance.

If I am not mistaken, methane is also given off when rice paddies start to rot.......so it is not just from animals (but I might be mistaken......have been before).

The real problem with methane is in the state of Texas where people just love eating pinto beans and cornbread. Big......fat......people......eating beans and cornbread.........yuuuuuummmmmmmm.

[geeky]

extreme left fanatici are more dangorous than global warming ... especially now one of them managed to get into the white house ... anybody who's not a crazy lunatic is under threat ... extreme left fanatic hate anything rational, the only reference they have are their own silly emotions, they claim their findings are scientific, while in fact they simply hate science, as science is based on the truth, on mathematics, not emotions; they hate it ... never accepting that nobody has as much hate inside of them as they do, just a bit like the PAD; they also don't get it that they're in fact the most corrupt group in Thailand; as that would be a rational conclusion, which they hate, simply for it being rational ...

whatever; no reason to panic, even if global would be true; we'll fix! but the 'we' would be people like me, not Al Gore, as he has no interest in actually fixing it; he just loves to point fingers, as that makes him feel good ...

[JR Texas]

extreme left fanatici are more dangorous than global warming ... especially now one of them managed to get into the white house ... anybody who's not a crazy lunatic is under threat ... extreme left fanatic hate anything rational, the only reference they have are their own silly emotions, they claim their findings are scientific, while in fact they simply hate science, as science is based on the truth, on mathematics, not emotions; they hate it ... never accepting that nobody has as much hate inside of them as they do, just a bit like the PAD; they also don't get it that they're in fact the most corrupt group in Thailand; as that would be a rational conclusion, which they hate, simply for it being rational ...

whatever; no reason to panic, even if global would be true; we'll fix! but the 'we' would be people like me, not Al Gore, as he has no interest in actually fixing it; he just loves to point fingers, as that makes him feel good ...

Fanatics on the extreme left hate anything rational (really.....I don't think so).......operate solely under the influence of emotion (no.....not entirely true).........hate science (that would be true if they only embrace emotion and not reason)........science is based on truth (not really....it is an evolving approximation of truth)

I don't understand why so many people seem to hate science. Maybe that allows them to dwell solely in the realm of emotion........maybe that is how they avoid reason.......maybe that is why it is easy to control them using emotional slogans and advertising, etc. And maybe that is how a corrupt and destructive status quo is maintained. After all, if we all embraced reason it would be a very different world......science/reason would rule, not mysticism/emotion.

[NovaBlue05]

Mainstrean scientific "opinion" can be bought....especially when it's an issue where the facts can't be conclusively proven.

Edited May 12, 2009 by NovaBlue05

[yabaaaa]

things) emit quite a large amount of methane gas. Some scientists believe it to be more of a problem than what our SUV's emit.

So, could cow farts really be the core problem with global warming rather than my little Suzuki? Wonder if Al Gore has measured cow farts recently?

Actually they burp more out than they fart out apparently

[MJP]

1. Open the window.

2. Turn the fan up from 2 to 3.

3. Sweat more.

4. Move to anywhere north of Sweden.

[yabaaaa]

He talked about the methane problem in his book Earth in the Balance......many years ago. It is serious.......and the human population is growing along with a Western lifestyle where beef is growing in importance.

If I am not mistaken, methane is also given off when rice paddies start to rot.......so it is not just from animals (but I might be mistaken......have been before).

The real problem with methane is in the state of Texas where people just love eating pinto beans and cornbread. Big......fat......people......eating beans and cornbread.........yuuuuuummmmmmmm.

I think most of the methane is trapped at depth in the seas waiting for them to warm up and then release it in one giant FART for all mankind. Surething if humans die out it will mean nothing, life will go on, many extinctons in earths history we are nothing special.

Edited May 12, 2009 by yabaaaa

[flying]

start preparing the spicy sauces for your arse kebabs.

Lets get into the fun of it!

Sure am glad I don't have kids ...

โอ้ ผมดีใจ ด้วย

Edited May 12, 2009 by flying

[MJP]

Another gem of a quote I shall add to my collection.

"You tree huggers don't have much of a sense of humor."

chuckd, 2009

Thank you, Chuck.

[bonobo]

What, pray tell, do wind turbines have to do with national parks? All teh turbins I have seen in Europe and the US are on private or public protpery, but no parkland. And if a raptor or two gets killed in teh turbins, well, polution kills far more wildlife, so in my humlbe opinion, that is an acceptable trade off.

I have also read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi and her husband have a very large investment in them. Why should Al Gore be the only one to get rich off this scam?

Refusing to hear the message because you don't like the messenger is pretty childish.  Some naysayers do think they have science to refute global warming.  I think these people are misguided, but at least they are using their brains.  But people who naysay global warming because Al Gore is somehow now the embodiment of it, well, that is really plain foolish.

 

You tree huggers don't have much of a sense of humor.

I don't mind being labled a tree hugger.  I am also a businessman, and I fully understand the profit motive.  I just don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  Business remains viable long-term when the environment is maintained in a good condition.

I wrote my doctoral thesis on the interaction between environmentalism and business, and much of what I found was that rampant environmentalism can have the opposite effect of its intention.  So no, I am not about th chain myself to a tree or castigate countries which have managed their elephant populations and now want to pay for that effort with ivory.  But "tree hugger?"  If that means I care about the environment, that I accept current mainstream science as the most likely understanding of the current situation, then OK, that is a label with which I can live.

[Jingthing]

I would like to add some more fuel to the fire to refute the ridiculous reactionary arguments that global warming is not real.

Consider this from today's Washington Post:

Most scientists now say there is a consensus about climate change: It is "unequivocal," concluded a United Nations report in 2007. It found that recent temperatures were about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit higher than a century ago -- and that most of this is "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gases.

" 'Unequivocal' was not chosen lightly," said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-chaired part of the U.N. effort. She said the proof is in data on shrinking sea ice, higher surface temperatures and rising sea levels.

...

Steele (A RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADER) told a national radio audience that any warming is "part of the cooling process." Asked to clarify what he meant, a GOP spokeswoman said his position was the same as the Republican Party platform. It doesn't mention global cooling.

Solomon, the NOAA scientist, said Steele is wrong. She said that global temperatures had broken from their warming trend in the past few years but that data do not disprove the consensus behind long-term warming.

Sorry, skeptics, YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9051803022.html

Edited May 19, 2009 by Jingthing

[Texpat]

I don't see this as a partisan issue.

Not sure why you're trying to pit GOP and DEM against each other on climate change.

That dog don't hunt.

Plenty on the left think it's bogus, and others on the right think its gospel.

I think the climate is changing. I'm not convinced in the least humas are the root cause or can do much, if anything, about it.

Gore's a retard any way you look at him.

[canuckamuck]

I would like to add some more fuel to the fire to refute the ridiculous reactionary arguments that global warming is not real.

Consider this from today's Washington Post:

Most scientists now say there is a consensus about climate change: It is "unequivocal," concluded a United Nations report in 2007. It found that recent temperatures were about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit higher than a century ago -- and that most of this is "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gases.

" 'Unequivocal' was not chosen lightly," said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-chaired part of the U.N. effort. She said the proof is in data on shrinking sea ice, higher surface temperatures and rising sea levels.

...

Steele (A RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADER) told a national radio audience that any warming is "part of the cooling process." Asked to clarify what he meant, a GOP spokeswoman said his position was the same as the Republican Party platform. It doesn't mention global cooling.

Solomon, the NOAA scientist, said Steele is wrong. She said that global temperatures had broken from their warming trend in the past few years but that data do not disprove the consensus behind long-term warming.

Sorry, skeptics, YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9051803022.html

"Most scientists say there is a consensus". Isn't that a paradox. But NOAA is fine with paradoxical science so no worries.

They are talking about the same .7C change in temperature from the beginning of the 1900's till 2007. No one is disputing that figure. 2007 was the peak year for temp in the last 100 years. This is completely within the historical averages for our planet, and totally in line with observed solar activity. 0.7C increase is hardly the 5C increase mentioned in the OP and a small variation for 100 years of history.

Nothing new here.

[JR Texas]

I would like to add some more fuel to the fire to refute the ridiculous reactionary arguments that global warming is not real.

Consider this from today's Washington Post:

Most scientists now say there is a consensus about climate change: It is "unequivocal," concluded a United Nations report in 2007. It found that recent temperatures were about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit higher than a century ago -- and that most of this is "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gases.

" 'Unequivocal' was not chosen lightly," said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-chaired part of the U.N. effort. She said the proof is in data on shrinking sea ice, higher surface temperatures and rising sea levels.

...

Steele (A RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADER) told a national radio audience that any warming is "part of the cooling process." Asked to clarify what he meant, a GOP spokeswoman said his position was the same as the Republican Party platform. It doesn't mention global cooling.

Solomon, the NOAA scientist, said Steele is wrong. She said that global temperatures had broken from their warming trend in the past few years but that data do not disprove the consensus behind long-term warming.

Sorry, skeptics, YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9051803022.html

"Most scientists say there is a consensus". Isn't that a paradox. But NOAA is fine with paradoxical science so no worries.

They are talking about the same .7C change in temperature from the beginning of the 1900's till 2007. No one is disputing that figure. 2007 was the peak year for temp in the last 100 years. This is completely within the historical averages for our planet, and totally in line with observed solar activity. 0.7C increase is hardly the 5C increase mentioned in the OP and a small variation for 100 years of history.

Nothing new here.

So, you are at it again, building straw men that have already been demolished by the scientific community. The debate is over........your side lost. Global warming is real........NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

You are the one who is presenting "nothing new." Stop visiting pseudo-scientific web sites that have been paid for by the big oil lobby.

Oh........I see.......you think NOAA and NAS and the UN are all involved in some type of conspiracy to bring down big oil........