Oh, here it finally is, the "we're coming out of a mini ice age" nonsense. Nice of you to get both that and the medieval warm period bollocks on the same graph. Pity neither of them have anything to do with real science though. Let's also ignore the fact that a planet doesn't just suddenly snap out of an ice age, mini or not without a reason. Cause if you don't ignore it you might have to explain it. And then we'd just get into that whole "The sun is warmer" bollocks. 
First of do you know anything of weather patterns such as NAO, AO, MJO, PNA or PDO? You honestly think that the sun is the only cycle the earth goes in? Check this out.
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.htmlhttp://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/Correlate that with the temp graph I shown up above. Climate shifts don't happen quickly? That is bullcrap, an El Nino can go to an El Nina in a month. A NAO going from positive to negative in winter will let storms in cold air dive down into North America while a positive NAO will not. How fast can that change? In a week.
The planet can't snap out of an ice age quickly, I'd agree with that. But then again this wasn't a warming of 4-5C. Do you realize all the warming or cooling in the past 1000 years has been less than 1C? Do you realize that for the past 1000 years we have been below normal, except for the little period around the Medieval period.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.htmlApparently, you are saying these guys are crap. But in any case they take more precedence than you.
The fact that you latched onto JunkScience.com so firmly instead of actually bothering to check if it was even remotely credible was all the proof I really needed that you aren't even remotely interested in actually seeing both sides of the debate. And now after I've pointed out what a load of bollocks your chosen guide was you still persist in trying to argue you are correct. The fact that your supposedly excellent guide to the flaws in the global warming theory turned out to be an often-wrong corporate shill's work should have made you question if the stuff you believed from his website actually had some basis in fact.
But you haven't. You've simply trotted out the same tired old arguments from the GW sceptics handbook without even bothering to check if they are wrong.
You kidding right? I've seen both sides of the debate. Latched on to the site? Hardly. But I will admit it is a cool site. But one thing I have seen is maybe he isn't as wacky as you said he was. Just goggled a little on DDT and found stuff leading to this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/opinion/8kristof.htmlNot saying he isn't a quack, but what you said would be perfectly in line with what I'd think a die-hard conservative would say about The Independent.
The answers to every single point you have brought up are available if you had wanted to read them. You've ignored the fact that water vapour isn't going to cause global warming since it will simply precipitate out if there is too much in the air. You've ignored that your graph showing no rise in the last 10 years is simply a smoothing error caused by the fact that as you know damn well 1998 was the biggest el nino year for over a century. You've ignored the fact that the so-called medieval warm period was a regional effect rather than a global one. I can only assume I'll be hearing that old chestnut about growing grapes in southern England next.
Actually you are wrong.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.htmlTop of Page Water Vapor
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.
Water vapor levels can change.
A smoothing error you say?
In short you've ignored every single piece of scientific evidence refuting your chosen view. You are simply doing the Young Earth Creationist's trick of looking for something you can pretend is scientific in order to justify the beliefs you already hold and then claiming that cause there seems to be a disagreement it's a perfectly valid point to say that the science is controversial.
Umm, do what? So I love weather, just to justify my beliefs? And I am against global warming just because it is controversial? Now that really is funny. Do you know I actually don't care much for climate? I love to Nowcast, watch hurricanes and tornadoes, because take it from me, forecasting is very, very hard and I'm still learning.
The fact of the matter is you know relativity little about weather. That is very clear since you think weather patterns are crap.
