I think I've cracked it.

Global warming is the direct result of the rapidly increasing volume of hot air being generated by discussion on global warming.

Did someone mention positive feedback mechanisms?

124c4u,
that's a very strange assertion given that all that data tells us you're totally wrong. Have you got a source or are you just voicing 'your opinion' (as so many sceptics here seem to be doing). Why, just today in my email came this gem of information about NASA's satellite measurements of Antarctica's ice melt increasing and the ice pack thinning.

http://spacefellowship.com/2009/09/25/nasa-ice-satellite-maps-profound-polar-thinning/

Did you even check the WIKI?
"Rising sea levels will reduce the stability of ice shelves, which have a key role in reducing glacial motion. Some Antarctic ice shelves are currently thinning by tens of metres per year, and the collapse of the Larsen B shelf was preceded by thinning of just 1 metre per year.[9] Further, increased ocean temperatures of 1 °C may lead to up to 10 metres per year of basal melting.[9] Ice shelves are always stable under mean annual temperatures of −9 °C, but never stable above −5 °C; this places regional warming of 1.5 °C, as preceded the collapse of Larsen B, in context.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet_dynamics#Effects_of_climate_change_on_ice_sheet_dynamics

Curmudgeon / Mark,
how many times have I asked you to address the fact that Phd in climatology (and fellow sceptic) Dr Michaels has said NOT to push the "colder since 1998" myth because you're going to get killed on this when temperatures rise in a few years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

(Just ignore 90% of the century's temperatures and focus only in on a few years after 1998! Real scientific integrity!)

Also, why does NASA record 2005 as above 1998 and 2007 equal to it?
Or are you just being 'selective' in your own use of data again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

You complain of 'sneering and allegations of errors where there are none' and yet completely avoid the data.

Will you recant this ridiculous anti-science position of yours if 2010 and 2011 break new temperature records? Who will have egg on their face when the El Nino turns around and combines with global warming to reveal even HIGHER temperature spikes? Certainly not the 'orthodoxy' you think is near death, when Dr Michaels is warning you sceptics are about to get killed on the fallacious 1998 argument.

Eclipse Now and Bugsy -
And how many times have I pointed out that the few years after 1998 (actually more than a decade) are crucial, because that's just when the IPCC started getting serious about forecasting temperatures and, the moment they did, the physical system did something different. Its the only way to judge forecasts.. so if the forecasts are wrong that means the assumptions on which they are based are wrong ... the proper way to read the graphs is that temperatures were rising until around the turn of the century then they started declining.. you can then say we are still above a certain point in the 1990s, but that doesn't help us very much. So they were high during the Medieval warming period (lot of evidence to say they were higher), they fell during the little ice age and now they are high again, thankfully..
In any case, as noted in the article, the point about declining-steady state temperatures has been admitted so if you're still arguing it you are among the few.
Bugsy - how can it be selective quoting? The point about using the quotes is to show how may different viewpoints there are among the warners in a supposedly settled piece of science. And its clear that there are. If you can show how all those quite different viewpoints can be unified - rather than try to deny that there are differences - I'd be quite interested to see your reasoning.

From Mark Lawson’s post: -
Extract from Penny Wong’s response.

“When changes in surface air temperature are considered, it is important to note that at time scales of around a decade, natural variability can mask the atmospheric warming trend caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. For example, global average surface temperatures clearly increased between 1975 and 2008 but some shorter periods, such as 1981-1989, showed no warming. Such behaviour is consistent with the outputs of climate models such as those assessed by the IPCC”.

Probably from Easterling & Wehner,” Is the climate warming or cooling?”

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

What the authors of this paper failed to mention was that in the 1980’s & 1990’s the El Chichon & Pinatubo volcanoes explain a lot of the flat trends. There have been no major volcanoes since Pinatubo (1981).

Lucia at “The Blackboard” critiqued this paper.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/how-to-obfuscate-forget-to-mention-volcanoes/”

Conclusion.
“Oddly, when placing the trend since 1998 into the context of historical variations, Easterling and Wehner did not consider the volcano connection.
This is unfortunate.
Their article appeared to have been aimed at silencing chatter in the blogosphere. But when climatologists at blogs or in the peer review literature try to explain away the recent short term slow warming by explaining that low trends were also observed during the 80s and 90s (but fail to mention that these excursions are explained by the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon), the collective nose of the blogosphere is likely to snort. The collective mind of the blogosphere shares the tacit knowledge that volcanoes erupted in the 80s and 90s and that climatologists often attribute the temperature declines during those periods to the volcanic eruptions. To whatever extent the blogosphere has a collective mind, it can recognize when climatologists are feeding them apples and calling them oranges.
With regard to the introduction in EW, the blogosphere is likely to respond with “can you give examples of negative trends not caused by volcanic eruptions that are also embedded during periods of brisk warming”?
The answer to that question is: “Ehrmm… no”.”

Feeding them apples & calling them oranges indeed.

Typo in above comment.

Pinatubo was in in June 1991, not 1981.

Mark Lawson is wrong in almost every respect.
Enough said.