Oh the irony. Eco-zealots love blaming adverse or 'unusual' weather on global warming. It's what helps sell it to the stupid media. Heck, scam high priest Al Gore's always banging on about drought, floods and tornados. Just give him billions, destroy your economy, move back to the caves and he'll fix the problem. It's why they renamed 'global warming' to 'climate change' and then again to 'catastrophic climate change'. It just sounds so much scarier.

You're right.Zealots on any side of a discussion rarely do their cause any good.
I think you will find that it is the media rather than anyone else who is driving the hysteria.
Certainly the media likes nothing more than a nice disaster. It's even better than a conjoined twins story.
The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links:
1. Man is raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by our emissions of carbon dioxide
2. Increasing CO2 levels causes the earth's temperature to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. "The greenhouse effect".
3. Due to positive feedback loops, the earth warms further etc etc, leading to catastrophe.....
Many people believe in 1) and 2), the evidence for 3) is weak to say the least...
The attached paper provides some interestiing food for thought...
HTML: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.pdf 
Sidicks
The evidence for 3) on Earth is zero. That's the 'Runaway Greenhouse Effect', which happened on Venus, but which nobody is predicting here. What's happening on Earth is a rise of a few degC before a new stability is reached. It may be only a few degrees, though, but the climatic impact may well be considerable.
Or itmay not...
Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK, in an interview with the BBC, agreed that:
“from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”30.
Jones also noted that it has been cooling since 2002, but that this trend was too short to be statistically significant.
But hey lets continue wuth the scaremongering and preaching the gospel according to Al Gore to our kids....

Sidicks
You're simply not paying attention. Even if Jones is correct (and even if he isn't being quoted out of context, which he probably is, there's plenty of credible climatologists who can show he's wrong), it's not the point. How many times does it have to be said before it penetrates:
Short term effects are masked by other processes. Firstly, the past 10 years have been the warmest on record. But even that doesn't conclusively prove anything. More importantly, the 200 year trend has seen a steadily rising global temperature, and all known 'natural' effects are insufficient to explain it. However, factor in the industrial greenhouse gases and the actual rise falls within the predicted range.
I will ask again, as I keep on doing. Where is the extra heat going if not warming the planet?
I have shown you that the science is correct, which is what you asked. Is that not enough? If not, why bother asking and wasting all our time?
There are plenty of "credible climatologists" on BOTH sides of the debate.
That's not what the warmist Professor Jones says, and he's meant to be on your side!!!
Firstly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Medieval Warming period was hotter than it is now.
However, the warmists realise that this discredits their argument, so they have tried (unsuccessfully) to deny that this period exists. Hardly a sign of credible scientists.
Secondly the credibilty of the recent temperature record is highly debateable - a significant reduction of weather stations, biased to retain the 'warmer ones' and those stations retained often placed in 'dubious' places designed to show warming where none exists.
The warming trend is more like 300 years, starting well before man-made CO2 emmissions were an issue, and an increasing temperature is hardly surprising given that the earth was on its way out of an ice age!
Natural variation is therefore more than sufficient to explain the changes!!
Look at the comparison with recent temperatures and sun spots etc.
No!! Models which are calibrated to historic data then manage to recreate historic data (obviously!!) are then being used to project in to the future and have failed to match up with recent experience.
To say the modelling confirms anything is to totally misunderstand how these models have been set up!
1) Extra heat or extra CO2 ?
2) The data shows that temperature changes influence CO2 levels (with an 800-year lag), NOT the other way around.
3) The planet is not a greenhouse - the greenhouse effect is a drastic simplification of the actual process by which the earth warms and cools
4) In comparison to water vapour, CO2 is a minimal 'greenhouse gas'
You've shown nothing of the sort, just regurgitated the same old nonsense most of which has already been discredited...

Sidicks
Heat!!!  Where does the bl**dy HEAT go?Yes, I have!!  It's GCSE physics every step of the way. I predicted you'd say just that. Show which of the steps is invalid, and you're on your way to Stockholm.