The 0.2 number is compliments of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.
If you expect us to seriously consider this data, please provide a link to the document at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This is so we can verify that you haven't cherry picked it out of context. Forgive me for not trusting your information on global warming. So far all of your information, on careful inspection, has turned out to be false or misleading .

The CBS story claiming that Alan Carlin's EPA report was suppressed turned out to be in itself a hoax.
See: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10722-Orland...

The petition is really a website with an anti global warming petition to sign.
If you don't believe in global warming and you think you're a scientist, you can sign this petition. The most well known petition signatory is Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb. In the movie 'Doctor Strangelove, or How I Learned how to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb', Peter Sellers plays Dr. Strangelove, a character modeled after Dr. Teller. Did you ever see that movie?

Teller was not a climate scientist, was one of the most right wing reactionary scientists (Hungarian refugee) ever and has been dead since 2003.
There are very few if any actual climate scientists on this list.
There are a lot of geologists, petroleum 'scientists'. and others with questionable credentials.
The Energy Industry generously funds 'researchers' who produce 'research' disputing global warming.
Conflict of Interest?
If anything, this site exposes the shaky scientific ground the anti global warming movement is based on.

Judith, you go out of your way to find any unscientific quackery that will support your indefensible position that global warming is a hoax. Why not go directly to the authoritative scientific sources and bypass all of the political hackery and scientific quackery?

You claim to be trained to evaluate hypotheses, not to parrot extremist agendas and rhetoric — and yet that is exactly what you are doing.

You just earned a Failing Grade in Science 101, 'Introduction to the Scientific Method”.

The 0.2 number is compliments of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.

Alan Carlin is the author of the EPA report that was suppressed. I read about it at the CBS News site and assume it's still posted there.

In the science courses that I've taken from biology to geology, I was encouraged to evaluate hypotheses, not to parrot extremist agendas and rhetoric.

Finally, apparently quite a few “political hacks” share my skepticism since 34,000 scientists have signed a statement debunking global warming.

Show me:
“news about the EPA suppressing an internal report that is skeptical about global warming”.
Are you quoting another political site here?

“If the U.S. adopts Waxman-Markey, global warming would be reduced by a total of 0.2 degrees F by 2100, an amount too small to detect.”
Who did the numbers?

You're getting your science from political hacks, Judith.
Have you ever taken a science class?
Do you even believe in science?

Thank you for your concern about my common sense, but can assure you that it is thriving. Look at the facts, which include this statistic: If the U.S. adopts Waxman-Markey, global warming would be reduced by a total of 0.2 degrees F by 2100, an amount too small to detect.

There is no trend toward skepticism of global warming by “more and more scientists”, as you claim. On the contrary, as more and more real world data and evidence emerges, more and more scientists are becoming more and more convinced of the reality of global warming.

There's a very good reason why the EPA hasn't released an analysis of global warming. They were forbidden to do so by the Bush administration, which also fired many career climate scientists from the EPA, who were convinced of the threat of global warming. In case you haven't noticed, Big Energy owned the Bush administration and Bush declared himself a global warming denier, having become convinced of this by the Petroleum Industry and his 'spiritual' advisors.

There is no evidence that planet Earth “has been cooling for at least 8 years” as you claim. On the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence that the planet is warming.

Buckeye Don explains the proper use of both terms — 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'. Do you understand Don's point?

Look up the word 'epistemology', Judithod.
You'll find some important tips for seeking out the best information on which to base your beliefs on global warming and what to do about it.
This is, FIRST a scientific issue, and SECONDARILY a political issue.
But you lack the intellectual curiosity necessary to arrive at a scientific conclusion before considering the politics of global warming.
Looking for answers about climate change from political sources is leading you to absurd scientific conclusions about the planet you're living on.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are highly biased political 'think tanks', funded by Corporate interests and 'conservative' Private Foundations. Their job is to 'frame' public policy debate so as to move opinion away from the best interests of the public and toward policy that favors Big Money at the expense of the majority of American citizens.

I regret to advise you that the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute are lying to you about global warming.

But why should that surprise you?

As for me, I'm sick and tired of Sojo and their followers lack of ability to support dissent. I thought that was the nature of academia; but my wife and I learned long ago that academia is all about tolerance as long as we agree with you. Not the real world.

Nevertheless, I might not have replied with the “slyness” you accuse me of if your own initial reply to Rev. Wallis had been less of an attack. Instead of attacking him like you did, perhaps you could have been a bit more gracious: “Rev. Wallis, I have read that there might be problems with this bill…What do you think?”

Maybe if you would adopt a less in-your-face approach, some folks who blog here might be willing to have a real conversation with you.

Are you a global warming denier, Judithod?

Who says, besides you, that 1,145,000 jobs will be lost and farm profits will be lowered by 28% because of ACESA?

The energy industry lobbyists?

Sincerely, justintime

What I do read and evaluate daily is a balance of publications from the conservative (e.g., Wall Street Journal) to the liberal (e.g., New York Times). Contrary to your smug assumption, I neither watch Fox nor listen to Limbaugh.

Because that's what she did; re-read her original post.

Why don't you quote that proverb to her?

If you haven't read it, then how can you say with such certainly that the cons outweigh the pros? You're guilty of the very same fallacy you accuse Rev. Wallis of accepting, just from the other side of the fence!

And further, Rev. Wallis wrote, “This legislation is a start and still far from perfect. But, it defines priorities for policy moving forward…” That hardly reads like he believes this bill is the “be all and end all.” Your bias against Rev. Wallis is showing, Judithod. You didn't even pay attention to what he actually wrote.

What I have read are pro and con comments regarding the legislation, and the cons far outweigh any pros, particularly in these tough economic times.