Stand by for 99 daze of flag waving platitudes, images of the happy elderly, bright eyed children and veterans saluting as both camps run from the difficult issues and resort to the old - soft - sell. The truly difficult issues on which the people should demand some sort of national action, global warming, immigration, rebuilding the economy - are left on the shelf; what's that old phrase, ' campaign in poetry, govern in prose '? graph OBTW Am I the only one who misses the Occupy Movement? You remember, that dewy eyed children's crusade that was going to sweep out the old and bad with the broom of youthful good intentions and North Face tents. Good times ... miss it a lot ...

I met a devil woman, she took my heart away She said I had it comin' to me, but I wanted it that way I think that any love is good lovin' And so I took what I could get, mmm Oooh, oooh, she looked at me with big brown eyes And said You ain't seen nothin' yet B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet Here's something that you never gonna forget B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet

What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it. Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling? Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it's not like NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark – or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts – that it simply hasn't occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards. What Watts has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. While he has suspected this for some time what he has been unable to do until his latest, landmark paper (co-authored with Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville) is to put precise figures on the degree of distortion involved. For the full story go to Watts Up With That NOW!

WRONG! Jobs & the economy have NEVER-EVER been the focus for Obama. No one can claim that this is his focus now. Obama is concerned with ONE-JOB and ONE-JOB alone, and that is his own job.

And now I'm feelin' better, 'cause I found out for sure She took me to her doctor and he told me of a cure He said that any love is good love So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get Oooh, and she looked at me with big brown eyes And said You ain't seen nothin' yet B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet Here's something, here's something that you're never gonna forget B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet

I'll tell you this No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn I'll tell you 'bout Texas Radio and the Big Beat Soft drivin', slow and mad, like some new language Now, listen to this, and I'll tell you 'bout the Texas I'll tell you 'bout the Texas Radio I'll tell you 'bout the hopeless night Wandering the Western dream Tell you 'bout the maiden with raw iron soul

You simply cannot separate the economy and global warming...they do not exist in different categories. The effects of global warming--as hinted in the article regarding food prices--is and will be increasingly profound to the economy. In a bad way. If you are concerned about jobs, paying your mortgage, spiraling health care costs, rising home insurance premiums, sharply rising food prices, energy costs for cooling, the expense of cleaning up after disasters, paying for oil wars, look no further than the necessity of replacing greenhouse gas spewing fossil fuels with a growing green economy.

Ha, ha! Anthony Watts doesn't even have a bachelor's. Some scientist. Your list of industry-funded scientists is not going to help your case, either. And yes, the "urban heat island effect" has been thoroughly debunked: http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm.

Here we go again. The Globe pushes the "Man-Made" Global Warming HOAX. Globe won't tell you about the IPCC leaked e-emails.. First of all, there are the 5000 LEAKED e-mails in 2009 and 2011 plus more documents from top Climate Scientists of the IPCC at the University of East Anglia in the UK, which show that the scientists FABRICATED DATA to support their theories that there is "Global Warming" and that it is man-made. The e-mails also show that the scientists made a concerted effort to SUPPRESS opposition from opposing scientists.------------------------ And there is also the discredited "Hockey Stick" theory by Michael Mann of the Univ. of PA that attempted to show that "man-made global warming" was melting the polar ice caps. The pictures of the polar bears were edited. There are numerous references to these events on the Internet. And what would be the purpose of propagating the "Global Warming" MYTH? Whether true or not (and there is no VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF for these assertions) these claims will be excuses for bigger government and bureaucracies, more government spending, more taxes, more environmental regulations, more Left wing BLAMING of big oil, coal, big business, the GOP, and Bush.. It is also an excuse for more taxpayer funding of academic research and for UNPROVEN "Green Energy" projects like solar, wind turbines, and electric cars. And PAYOFFS for big campaign donors.

O luxury! thou cursed by Heaven's decree, How ill exchanged are things like these for thee! How do thy potions, with insidious joy, Diffuse thy pleasures only to destroy! Kingdoms by thee, to sickly greatness grown, Boast of a florid vigour not their own; At every draught more large and large they grow, A bloated mass of rank unwieldly woe; Till, sapped their strength, and every part unsound, Down, down they sink, and spread the ruin round.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Goodness, relax a little. Your talking points are about 3 years out of date and thoroughly refuted. Besides, as predicted, people are starting to accept the reality of global warming because they can see it now. It effects everyone. You can't hide it. Sorry.

Greendragon and JLErwin http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/breaking-from-best-to-worst-in-less-than-a-day.php http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

This is your problem right here: all of these links are to conservative sites. All of them are compromised by industry funding. You've got to get out of the echo chamber. The right lies. They hire people to lie. We saw this happen with the denials from Big Tobacco, from polluters about acid rain, and so on. They do it constantly; we shouldn't have fallen for this PR trick again! But we did, didn't we? Power Line Blog: This one is new to me. Run by conservative lawyers who are both fellows at the Claremont Institute, which is a conservative think tank funding by right-wing family foundations (people who have made a fortune polluting and who want to protect their industries). Joanne Nova: Her degree is in molecular bio, and she has published NO peer-reviewed research in climate science. She gets paid to present to right-wing think tanks (funded by fossil fuel companies), and worked directly for Shell oil for four years. Watts Up with That: Run by Anthony Watts, who has no academic credentials and is paid by the Heartland Institute, which is heavily funded by fossil fuel corporations.

Show me the science, not the opinions. I realize things like science, and anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions constitutes a great conspiracy against you, but humor me. Where are the data that the glaciers are not retreating? Where are the data that the oceans are not warming? What deep core ice and sediment samples back up your claim? Relying on atmosphere and the semantics of whether or not human activity has a role in it are red herrings. The best you can do is prove there is a natural, industrialization-independent cycle.

New invention called Google. Try it.

he world's oceans have been warming for more than 100 years, twice as long as previously believed, new research suggests. http://www.livescience.com/19414-oceans-warming-135-years.html Was The Hockey Stick correct?

According to the NRC, the so-called Hockey Stick is correct, but that is not the point. Your posts imply you deny any warming is occurring at all. Now you are back-pedaling.

I actually read the scientific literature rather than let some paid blogger of questionable credentials and integrity tell me what to think. Try it sometime.

Please show me a conclusive peer reviewed report that unequivocally shows GW is happening. What about McIntyre and McKitrick's review of Mann? and this WEgman Report was that "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann's original Hockey Stick paper]"

JLErwin 3 -reporting ew as I know comment section can be funky. I guess I agree to disagree Please show me a conclusive peer reviewed report that unequivocally shows GW is happening. What about McIntyre and McKitrick's review of Mann? and this WEgman Report was that "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann's original Hockey Stick paper]

The NRC report (2006) WAS a peer-reviewed evaluation. The findings of McIntyre and McKitrick, and of Wegman, were also subjects of controversy regarding methods, including charges of plagiarism against Wegman. In fact, both the NRC findings, and the opinions of scientists in the discipline, are not that evidence for climate change is unequivocal, but that there is evidence of a warming trend. More controversial are claims that human activity is the dominant cause. Statistics can show a correlation between industrialization and warming trends, but they cannot show cause. The basis for the hypothesis is based on the thermodynamics and chemistry of carbon dioxide. Even if you can show there is no 'human activity component' to climate change, that does not mean change is not happening. Evidence for change does not rely solely on air temperatures, but on water samples, ice samples, measuring the size and change in size of ice fields and glaciers, etc. The consensus is that there is a warming trend. What is less clear is whether this is a short-term effect (that is, will temperatures cool over the next hundred years or will they continue to rise) or a long-term effect (as in, will net temperatures rise or fall over the next ten thousand years). But let's be candid. You aren't interested in science or fact. You are only interested in partisanship, defeating 'political enemies' and propping up 'political allies' regardless of merit.

The bottom line is that even among skeptics there is not consensus as to what isn't happening. Do I think global warming is happening? Yes, based on the data. Is it anthropogenic? There is probably an element of that, but there just isn't enough long-term evidence to say conclusively. Is pollution a problem? Yes, so it is in our own economic and public health interest to find cost-effective ways to reduce it. Beyond that nothing is ever unequivocal, including proving unequivocally that GW is not happening.

There's plenty of proof that global warming is occurring, and that it is caused by human activity. I would recommend reading Michael Mann's new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. He goes over the science in greater detail than I can do here (and I'm not a scientist), but it is written for a lay audience. He is one of the world's leading climate scientists, publishing research in the most respected peer-reviewed scientific literature. He's has also been the victim of a relentless, industry-funded smear campaign. He fought back, and won. Over 5 independent investigations have cleared his name. Many people are greatly confused about how the scientific method works. Science deals in probability, not certainty. Some theories are highly robust in that they act as powerful, predictive models of nature, and our level of certainty approaches 97% or more on human-caused climate change. As for causality, we have the physical linkages. Yet I doubt that either of you will. I see a concern troll and a denier, for whom no amount of evidence will suffice. PR firms pay people to post pro-industry talking points on news forums, by the way.