Jayb,

Regarding wattsupwiththat:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"...He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials, other than being a weather announcer...Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute..."

That would be this Heartland Institute:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?CMP=twt_gu

Dear runner,

You silly lad, it was precisely investigations into why the world was not cooling as predicted by planetary cycle analysis which lead to investigations showing the threat of global warming. 

However much you want to behave like the church did when it ignored the child abuse within its ranks, the great lump of extra CO2 is still there and increasing in concentration daily. They thought they got away with denials but not so in the end, you need to remember these things have a habit of catching up with you.

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm interested to know why you don't accept that without the grren house effect of mainly CO2 or water vapor that the planet would be an average 32C cooler than it is now?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

If you were on the moon, which is the same distance from the Sun as us, in bright sunlight, then the sun went down and you were in darkness the temperature would drop around 250C. This is because the moon has no water vapor (or very, very little of it) or no CO2 or other sundry gases that make up our atmosphere. The NASA boys did the calculations for the moon suits based on the physics which is why they had incredible amounts of protection from the heat including cooling systems. What would they have been dressed in if you or runner were in charge?

Or if you do accept it why do you make the leap of faith to decide that a doubling of the second most important warming gas will have zero effect on the average temperature of our planet?

I keep asking all you deniers and don't ever get an answer.

It's the physics you see and unless you are an Einstein or a Newton you are going to have to be pretty darn good to talk your way out of billions of tonnes of extra CO2 floating around our modern atmosphere. But I'm happy to give you a hearing. Let's have at it hoss.

Btw you are stealing my shtick. That's okay, I thieved it off your side.

Some nice research and more to come.

^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. "(p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities.

While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

* * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

cc

Poirot: The Washington story checks out with Snopes as well. Unless that's a denighers website as well. Don't know. All I can say is Global warming was happening in 1922 according to scientists & we'd all be doomed, even back then. Regardless of whether Watts has a degree in anything. All he did on that Web site was quote a news paper article of a report from scientists from 1922. So were you intending to ridicule the man or the article or me?

Oh pretty please dear Poirot may I have a go?

Dear JayB,

Just so we are clear I intend to ridicule you and I promise it will be fun...at least for me.

You claim “All I can say is Global warming was happening in 1922 according to scientists & we'd all be doomed, even back then.“

What the hell? Really? Global warming was happening in 1922 according to the scientists?

Balderdash, Bunkum and Codswallop! Or in a slightly more modern vernacular; “Get your hand off it mate”

The newspaper does not mention 'global warming' nor even 'scientists' rather it talks about a stronger than normal Gulf Stream.

I mean here it is as quoted by you in the article; “Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.”

Go to this Wikipedia link on the Gulf Stream and look under 'Localised Effects'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

“Northern parts of Norway lie close to the Arctic zone, most of which is covered with ice and snow in winter. However, almost all of Norway's coast remains free of ice and snow throughout the year. Weather systems warmed by the Gulf Stream drift into Northern Europe, also warming the climate behind the Scandinavian mountains.”

I mean denialists had great fun recently when “Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

Note the year, 1922, the date of your supposed great global warming. This my young chap is what is meant by localised events.

Cont...

Cont...

But here is the doosy.

You quoted the following from the associated press article;

“Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

The only problem is the last line about sea level rise and uninhabitable coastal cities was not in the original article but is an addition.

Here is a link to Snopes with a picture of the article.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Here is the link to the PDF of the source report kept on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) site;
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Don't worry I'm not blaming you for this dastardly piece of underhanded, unethical, typical denialist shenanigans, rather I'm blaming the person I think you originally pulled the article from, one Lars Hagen of The Roanoke Slant. Or perhaps there was someone else further down the sordid food chain.
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/more-global-warming-alarmist-and.html

I am however blaming you for being an idiot and believing this stuff so completely that you didn't think to check something so obvious.

If I were you right now I would bow my head in shame and vow never to darken the door of this thread again. Let this be a lesson to you young lad.

Who is next?

Oops sorry, nearly forgot. Thank you Poirot for the indulgence. I hope to return the favour some day. Damn good fun.