Obama's Climate Swan Song: "without some common baseline of facts … we’ll keep talking past each other"

There is no debate as the idiotic, dishonest, liberals would not only lose a debate (on CAGW, on the economy, on regulations, and so on), if the ‘debate’ was a discussion of facts as opposed to calling the opposing ‘side’ Nazis or Deniers, they would be run out of town on a rail.
This is pathetic:

And by the time he leaves office, President Obama will have added more to our national debt that all the other presidents before him combined. When President Obama finally leaves office, the national debt will be almost $20 trillion. Prior to taking office, the man who has tacked on $9.3 trillion to what our children and grandchildren owe once said the then $9 trillion national debt was “unpatriotic.”

…. The estimated cost of regulations under Obama is a staggering $873 billion. That includes a shocking $344 billion cost in Environmental Protection Agency regulations alone. All told, the number of new regulations that been finalized under President Obama checks in at almost 3,000.

… In the past eight years, America has lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs and, although the president doesn’t mention it, America had a global trade deficit of over $732 billion last year.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

(EPA internally report, suppressed)
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.”

Ok, he says we need a “baseline of facts”.
Fact 1: There has been a warmup since the LIA, on the order of .7C.
Fact 2: There have been many other warming periods, notably the MWP just during this interglacial period, with similar and even greater changes in temperature.
Fact 3: Although there was an uptick in the rate of warming in the 80s and 90s, that has slowed to a crawl, with an actual “Pause” of some 18 or 19 years in length on the books.
Fact 4: Under laboratory conditions, increasing CO2 has a warming effect, dubbed the “greenhouse effect”.
Fact 5: In the wild, no such effect can be attributed, due to a host of factors, boiling down to the fact that climate is “noisy”.
Fact 6: CO2 has a definite and proven positive effect on the biosphere.
Fact 7: At this time, no one can state with any credibility that there is a “planetary emergency”, or even a problem with our climate.
QED.