Out of the mouths of WUWT deniers

Here is a typical dose of denialism, courtesy of commenters at WUWT.  Enjoy!

A healthy willingness to be united against science

Chad Wozniak gives some stern advice to fellow fake skeptics at WUWT:

May 27, 2013 at 12:41 pm  There is more than enough hard science to disprove the alarmists’ arguments and contentions, but this does mean that skeptics should stick to the hard science.

And in the very next sentence departs from "hard science" writing:

Of course there is a greenhouse effect, and it varies by substance – surely nitrogen and oxygen and argon have some greenhouse effect, even if it is tiny relative to, say, water vapor. The Earth is definitely warmer, by about 15 degrees C, than it would be without its atmosphere. False or manifestly incorrect rationalizations by skeptics for rejecting AGW will only provide grist for the alarmist mill.

If Chad is thinking of O2, N2 and Ar then he's wrong, of course.  (However oxygen in the form of ozone and oxygen and nitrogen in the form of nitrous oxide exhibit the greenhouse effect.)  Perhaps this is why he maintains:

This debate does express a healthy willingness on the part of skeptics to mull over and argue about details, in contrast to the religious, delusional, see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil dogmatism and stonewalling torpor of the alarmists, and this objectivity and skepticism among skeptics is crucial to differentiating honest science from alarmist charlatanism.

Or is he having second thoughts about sticking to "hard science" when a hardened denial suits him better.  In fact, at no time should "skeptics" back away from denial, no matter what the evidence shows:

However, my concern in this debate is first and foremost that, regardless of different opinions amongst us on details, the skeptic community must be united in its general position that there is no discernible incremental effect on temperatures of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that such effect as could ever be identified will be either nugatory or actually beneficial. At no time should we back away from this position.

The only surface temperature Elizabeth trusts lets her down...

Elizabeth says she only trusts one surface temperature data set:

May 30, 2013 at 12:43 pm This paper has to BS because reliable surface temp data from 1850 is non existent due to adjustments, UHI etc. He is comparing his CFC data with a pretend made up temperature trends by hadcrut Giss etc.The only surface temperature data that I trust is CET and it shows a 100% flat line since 1849. There has been no significant rise confirmed by satellite data since 1979

A pretend made-up temperature?  Here is the "only surface temperature" Elizabeth trusts. Her eyes deceive her if she thinks it "shows a 100% flat line since 1849"! (Click the chart to enlarge it.)

Data source: HadCET

...and so does the satellite data

Elizabeth is in deep denial:

May 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm The fact that there has been no “global” warming can easily be shown and has been overlooked massively. Look at ANY graph of Southern Hemisphere temperatures since measurements began and you will observe NO warming in the SH. see RSS remote sensing graphs. its NOT global. Actually tropics doesnt appear to show warming either (RSS data).

Let's see, shall we?  This animated chart indicates that RSS, UAH and GISTemp all show the temperature of the southern hemisphere has been going up.

Data sources: RSS, UAH and GISTemp

We've got Delingpole!

Mike Mellor says "they've got McKibben, we've got Delingpole":

June 1, 2013 at 6:31 am Dave says: June 1, 2013 at 6:15 am The problem with Morano is he has no scientific credentials. That makes him the worst possible type of person to personify the skeptical movement.Yes, but the most heard voices in the climate debate are those of the media people. They’ve got McKibben, we’ve got Delingpole, etc. etc.

Adapt! Adapt!

ferd berple wrongly thinks that humans can adapt to any heat (excerpt):

June 20, 2013 at 7:18 am ...Humans are one of the best adapted warm climate animals on the planet. Everything about us is optimized to deal with heat. So long as we have water and shade there is no place on earth too hot for us to survive. Which tells us that conditions where humans evolved were much warmer than where most of us live today.

In fact, if you sit naked on the beach in the tropics on the equator at noon under a palm tree and there is a breeze blowing you will be very comfortable. If you try the same thing at midnight and there is a breeze blowing, you will be cold. Even if you come out from under the palm tree and bask in the abundant back radiation.

Call me when the oceans are jacuzzi warm.

He needs to read this paper by Sherwood and Huber, about the maximum wet bulb temperature that humans can endure.  They write:

Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning.

And if he's ever stuck in the Lut Desert in Iran, or outback Queensland or Flaming Mountain in China, he'd better find some shade and be glad that there is low humidity.

Coal belongs in the air

AndyG55 says buried carbon is "meant to be in the atmosphere":

June 21, 2013 at 2:31 am I will repeat, for the AGW bletheren.  Coal is carbon. It mostly comes from buried plant life.  This carbon that was buried is MEANT to be in the atmosphere as CO2.
THAT IS WHERE IT BELONGS !!!!!!

Why does Bob Tisdale even think of communicating science?

omnologos says - in a comment on an article by Bob Tisdale, who as far as I can make out, has no scientific background:

July 1, 2013 at 5:23 am WHY DO PEOPLE EVEN THINK OF COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE IF THEY HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND!!