No - it is a FACT that the earth has warmed over recent decades. It can be measured. I have not seen anyone seriously challenge this FACT.
Nope. No reliable measurements exist. (I tend to agree that it probably is warming, but there is no reliable, conclusive evidence) Get out more then.
Yep A very large number of reliable measurements exist that confirm that the plant has warmed over recent decades Measurements of land surface air temperature is just one example: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/land Could you show us any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the planet has not warmed over recent decades?
That is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis must contain some sort of proposed explanation for an observable phenomena A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/TL/filson/writhypo.php A hypothesis would be: "If Bugsy jumps off any building at 10am, Friday the 1st of April, 2011, he will immediately plummet to the ground due to the gravitational pull of the earth". I may plummet to the ground and validate your hypothesis - but you still can't be sure it didn't happen just because the earth sucks
Measurements, for sure. Reliable, not really. Confirmation, absolutely not. Ah, another colourful graph. Nice.
For sure No? Perhaps you could explain why? Or show us some measurements you consider to be more reliable? Absolutely correct. But it is empirical evidence supporting the proposition, and in concert with the mountains of similar evidence, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, I think we can fairly safely accept the fact that the planet is warming. Yes, isn't it. Do you have any evidence at all to support your position? Or are we just relying of the power of your towering intellect?
Don't include me in that 'we' (I still have an open mind on the matter). A colourful graph with cleverly manipulated numbers obtained from dubious data. Sorry, I'm not that gullible.
Don't be concerned. The "we" was meant to refer to reasonably informed and scientifically literate adults. You were not included Would it be too much to ask what you consider dubious about the data? Sorry - but it appears you are. Because you seem to be relying on opinions with not on single skerrick of evidence to support them. On what do you base these opinions of yours? If you are simply repeating what Jonesy and BoltA told you - you need to admit it.
You keep changing the definition. But anyway, like you said, the whole of the climate change science is just theory and cannot be proved.
And closed-minded. You forgot closed-minded. I'm very glad I'm not included in your 'we'. As I've stated, I have a totally open mind on the subject. Others, not so much. Poor, gullible fools.
I know what is indisputable... The emails being sent around aghast at the facts that current data didn't support CC and the need to switch it up so it did. LOL Now that was an epic fail.
You believe anonymous EMAILS?? Hint please do not follow the instructions of emails that tell you to put your money into a Nigerian bank
No - I didn't change any definitions. I have posted 2 links for you explaining what a hypothesis is. It appears you are unable to understand them. Yes - the whole of the climate change science is just theory and cannot be proved. Just like everything else in science is just theory and cannot be proved. You would do well to try to understand what words actually mean before you try to use them
No - I did not forget "closed-minded" "Closed-minded" would describe people that make claims without being able to provide any evidence whatsoever to support their claims. We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you consider that the enormous amount of data that tells us that the planet has warmed over recent decades is "dubious".
No, 'closed-minded' would describe people unwilling to accept new ideas. Those intolerant of others' opinions. However, I'm always willing to consider new interpretations.
I am certainly intolerant of people who simply regurgitate Andrew Bolt's opinions as you do. Why do you have no evidence to support these "opinions" of yours? Are you embarrassed to link to Alan Jones' website? No - obviously you are not. All you do is spout "opinion" - but cannot not show us a single piece of evidence that you base this "opinion" of yours on. We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you consider that the enormous amount of data that tells us that the planet has warmed over recent decades is "dubious". Why can't you do that? Have you forgotten what Bolty told you to say?
Incorrect. Wanna try again sweetheart? You're having another bad day it seems. I wasn't aware he had one. You seem to be well informed on him though. Oh dear, you are having a bad day aren't you sweety? Obviously your reading is as bad as your comprehension. I've clearly stated that I have an open mind on the matter. Such a bad day: you shouldn't have got out of bed. Just to refresh your memory:
Someone who spouts opinion but cannot explain any basis for that opinion does not have an open mind. They are just a parrot. We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you consider that the enormous amount of data that tells us that the planet has warmed over recent decades is "dubious". Why can't you do that? Have you forgotten what Bolty told you to say?
You seem to be struggling with basic definitions and concepts. Oh well, not much I can do about that. Yeah, but I'll ask him again when he gets back from the bar (it's his shout).