You cannot be as idiotic as you pretend to be, flea. The article was not by Watts, who in any event runs a respected web-site. Inside Climate News has shown itself to be misinforming its readers, if you read the documents which they are misrepresenting.The article is by Ken CohenVice President Public and Government AffairsExxon Mobil Corporation.
You still have not read the documents, but continue to make uninformed stupid remarks about them.
The link you supply to Neven says nothing critical ofWatts, but I suppose you merely intended to waste my time viewing it.

The flea has the temerity to question my education while he demonstrates continually that he is an ignoramus. I was a top student in English, mathematics and physics, mid range in chemistry. I also learned the rules of debate, of which the flea has demonstrated he is as clueless, as he is of logic. One rule, which I have copied from a debating society page, which the flea should acknowledge, is:

“the side bearing the onus of persuasion must discharge that burden or lose. Except when the negative introduces a Counter-Plan, the onus of persuasion lies upon the affirmative team. “
http://debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf
The onus is on the flea in relation to his support of the assertion that humans cause global warming. He has to explain how, when 97% of atmospheric CO2 is contributed by nature, the trivial contribution by humans is the cause. If CO2 is the cause of the warming, he has to explain how, when the computer models say that the content of CO2 will cause global warming to continue, it stops. There are serious problems with the science of the effect of the atmospheric CO2 content.
Asking stupid questions and repeating scurrilous nonsense about Exxon-Mobil will not discharge the onus, and that is all that the flea has contributed.

Leo Lane,
Where did you get the idea that humans are responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2? The data I've seen shows it to be nearly an order of magnitude more.

Is it that you're referring to gross emissions? Nature's a net absorber of CO2, so does it matter if its gross emissions are far higher than those from human activity? You must really be clutching at straws if you think that means humans are any less to blame for global warming.

As for the global warming stopping, firstly you should note that it's resumed. Secondly the energy has to go somewhere, and it would've showed up on the satellite measurements if it were going back out into space. So the obvious answer is that the extra heat was going into the oceans.

Leo
Scientists might debate their findings with one another in relation to research, but you do not debate matters such as CO2 and long wave radiated infrared interaction is right or wrong. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether gravity is true or false, or about whether vegetation goes through a process of photosynthesis.

One of the references I gave you states:

"The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Feb. 25 in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2."

The research was conducted in the natural environment, not in a laboratory as you have previously intimated (ARM Research).

You need to come up with science to debunk the ARM research, Leo; just aggressive sophistry does nothing.

Bringing up debating rules is purely a technique to draw away from you continually asserting the completely illogical comments that climate scientists commit fraud, and the double dealing ExxonMobil have been alleged to have committed in the 1980s.

ExxonMobil had been investigated by the Attorney General for 12 months prior to sending a subpoena to management. To take it to a more formal approach must mean that the Attorney General feels there may be a prima facie case.

“Where did you get the idea that humans are responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2? The data I've seen shows it to be nearly an order of magnitude more.” Why, Aiden, where did you dredge up the data to which you refer? A similar place to where you obtained the “acidification of oceans” misinformation?
Anthony Watts worked it out from a table supplied by the EPA

"EPA document supports ~3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources"
Anthony Watts / July 29, 2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/
Of course, this is not the only source, and there are minor variations in the figure, but we know you carefully avoid information unles it emanates from fraud promoters.

Leo, if you are going to provide references about science you need to employ a reliable scource.

Here Watts is taken apart; as suggested before sophistry is meaningless when discussing science.

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21/dissecting-anthony-watts-pathetic-climate-disinformation-on-pbs/

Here is an exceptionally interesting quote in relation to Watt's motivation in pushing denial of climate change and it is not the science.

"SPENCER MICHELS: What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."

As usual, flea, you did not read the relevant document, showing Watts’ meticulous calculations, and nevertheless, refer us to a baseless criticism of Watts, by some fraud promoter who refers us to Skeptical Science, as the basis of his fraud promotion comments.
You have already established yourself as a liar, and manipulator of information in order to misinform. You now demonstrate that you are an ignoramus, and determined to remain that way, by refusing to read the material relevant to your consequently baseless comments.
Watts sets out, in detail, his source of information, and his calculations, which stand up, regardless of the baseless criticism of Watts by the fraud promoter to whom you refer us.You find it mandatory, because of your nature, to make baseless ad hom comments, but they are of no effect.
If you find anything incorrect in Watts’ work, let us know. Otherwise we have verified that the human contribution of CO2 is trivial. There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
The assertion of human caused global warming is fraudulent.