pwokenyaw says: "Here's the response: The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island"

So this link is provided to give further information:
"Because some parts of some cities may be several degrees hotter than their surroundings, a difference double or triple the warming observed over the historical temperature record, there is a risk that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. However, the fact that the UHI is so large is, paradoxically, evidence that it largely absent from the record, otherwise warming would be shown as much larger in the record. The 'heat island' warming does unquestionably affect cities and the people who live in them, but it is not at all clear that it biases the historical temperature record: for example, urban and rural trends are very similar.

The IPCC says:

However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant. [8] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221)
Note that not all cities show a warming relative to their rural surroundings. For example, Hansen et al. (JGR, 2001) adjusted trends in urban stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions, in an effort to homogenise the temperature record. Of these adjustments, 42% warmed the urban trends: which is to say that in 42% of cases, the cities were getting cooler relative to their surroundings rather than warmer. One reason is that urban areas are heterogeneous, and weather stations are often sited in "cool islands" - parks, for example - within urban areas."

I find this utterly uncompelling. I would say it pure idiocy but let's try to keep it polite. It does demonstrate is a lack of understanding of what a urban heat island is. I love this the last part "One reason is that urban areas are heterogeneous, and weather stations are often sited in "cool islands" - parks, for example - within urban areas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

They could have just well said it was under a tree, OR the magical powers of parks repelled the evil heat. Or we also found that standing on sidewalks to be hot, but these silly people the raising this issue don't understand that weather stations aren't on sidewalks.

"As for the rest of Daly's "argument", he should take the ExxonMobil funding and do some peer-reviewed science, rather than just spout inaccurate stuff like Peiser did in attacking the Oreskes' reviewed work on the global warming consensus."

Oreskes "work" was a crock.

"BTW, James Woolsey is a hardcore neocon, so if he's a Democrat, he's not an ordinary one. "

Woolsey is not completely unhinged liberal. He is not a Boxer or Kerry, but if the liberal universe has shrink to such a degree that Woolsey is even vaguely close to being a neocon, the Dems are done.