"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.

So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them many
times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term. Have a
look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory or
relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Einstein
first defined this concept (and some others regarding simultaneity) before
making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a pre-condition
for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as indeed
the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?