rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15
th, 2013 at 12:40pm:
Oh dear Greggery! That is patheitic even by your standards!
No Bunny, it's just the truth. However, you don't like the truth; we all know that. Hitler, gravity, lies, blah blah.
Anyway, here goes ...
Evidence exists. I've always said that. Check back over all of my posts in every single thread. I've never denied that there is evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. Who would?!
What I HAVE said, is this: there's no
credible reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.
A
big difference.
Here, this might help you:
"evidence: 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis."In the first example, the broken window
can certainly be used as evidence to help show that a burglary took place, however, simply calling it evidence doesn't mean it's the actual truth. It turns out that the window was actually broken by a kid throwing a ball in the street (there's an eye witnesses to this). The eye witness is credible and reliable. The mere
assumption that there was a burglary, based purely on a broken window, is not credible and reliable: it's just an assumption; an educated guess.
The same goes for your AGW hypothesis: there may indeed be plenty of evidence out there (there is!), but it's not necessarily the truth. To find the truth we need some credible reliable evidence. So far, the AGW alarmists have just been standing around looking at the broken glass on the ground and yelling "burglary, burglary". What they need to do is see if there are any kids hiding around the corner. However, they simply refuse to look.

Understand? Too subtle for you?