Let's put this another way:
The VAST majority of climate scientists and every National Academy of Science in the first world assert that our theories of climate change are theories. Some guys on the internet who systematically ignore the data that they don't like say something different. I know who I'm going with.
That's a pretty insulting statement to make to Daiwa. AGW is a belief.
To refer to climate change as a hypothesis is absurd.
A hypothesis is, as defined in science, and educated guess unsupported by evidence. But we have a vast body of evidence supporting modern theories of climate change.
Temperatures have, indisputably, increased substantially since the start of the 20th century. They have increased essentially as predicted by the models. As my link shows, temperatures have likely increased during the last 15 years or so, although as your link shows, this is not indisputable. However, even if we accept your link, your own person still asserts that climate change is happening as predicted by models.
On top of that, you have arctic ice melting as predicted ahead of time by models. You have glaciers in worldwide retreat, as predicted by the models. Or you have the measured ocean acidification, which is following the predicted trends (source: C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371). Or the fact that the rate of the global sea level rise is accelerating, as predicted by models (some source as before).
This is all strong, largely indisputable, evidence for climate change as described by our current theories.
And the best part is, there are no viable alternative hypotheses. Oh, people have tried. Real hard, but no hypothesis has stood up to any kind of reasoning.
You know what is pretty insulting? The fact that people are calling out scientists for being incompetent at their job on the basis of not even half baked theories, or a fundamental misstatement of how science works.
To get to be a theory, it needs to make predictions that can be tested against that actually work out. So far, no go.
Except you ignore the fact that it DOES predict historical changes in temperatures (over decades), it successfully predicted arctic ice melts (in fact, it has probably UNDERESTIMATED that), and global glacier retreat. And acidification. And rate of sea level rise.
You are simply ignoring all the data that are inconvenient to your argument. Scientists don't get to do that.
One significant volcanic eruption and everything changes.
No. Volcanic eruptions might change a yearly temperature a bit, but unless a bunch of supervolcanoes go off, a slight drop in temperatures one year isn't going to change the big picture.
The data didn't really get scrutinized very carefully until after that and then, suddenly, once the big bad "denialists" started looking over the readings, the agreed upon temperature measurements miraculously stabilized.
Right, right, people are faking data now. Its a conspiracy.
Temperature readings are taken in a variety of different ways and calibrated against each other. Most AGW deniers can't even deny that temperatures have increased since 1880 or so because the data are sufficiently strong.
It is an undeniable fact: Nobody predicted that in 2013 we'd be seeing the same temperatures (atmosphere/surface) as we were in 2003. Nobody. And yet, here we are.
You might want to go back and read your own article.
The guy in your own article says that some fraction of models they ran (that assumed climate change) DID predict essentially no rise in temperatures due to statistical fluctuations. And as my article said and as yours also, looking at temperature changes over that small of a window does not work due to short scale statistical fluctuations.
You are objecting to something on the basis of a line of reasoning that your own sources reject (that you can use time frames of that length to falsify anything - both of our sources say at least 15 years).