Is there any science in climate change?

[anticrank]

Curious how these arguments are always personalised: ... 'You' must prove climate change!

No, not at all, climate change is well established I think.
What needs to be demonstrated though is why the current instance is incontrovertibly caused by human activity without demonstrating at the same time why previous instances were not. Why is that so difficult a concept?

What you need to ask yourself is why you are privy to this killer argument against AGW and the scientific community is not; or, if it is, why it does not have the same regard for it that you do. There are various possible answers to this conundrum. Those that are favorable to you are distinctly improbable: e.g. you are better informed than most professional scientists; or, it's a massive fraud/conspiracy involving tens of 1000's of scientists; or, most scientists would agree with you but are too afraid to speak out. The most likely answer, of course, is that you are simply wrong. And you are wrong. And were you to investigate the matter properly, you would know that you are wrong.

anticrank

[anticrank]

Yes, I'm aware of the site, however your own link has as its first point:
"After reading a 2007 speech by US Senator James Inhofe who claimed that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science to be an internet resource that examined the scientific support of the most common arguments against mainstream scientific opinion."

So the whole premise of the site is to undermine one side of the argument while taking the other as gospel. As I said, that isn't sceptical, and it isn't science.

There aren't two sides to the AGW argument, any more than there are two sides to the evolution/creation argument. That would be to pretend that either is a matter of scientific controversy, when in fact neither is. There are those who accept the established science, and those who prefer conspiracy theories.

anticrank

And thus we witness the faith based element I posted about previously.

It's no more faith-based than the entirely correct view that creationism is drivel. AGW denialism is drivel. I won't engage with it on any other terms. If the response from creationists and AGW deniers is to pretend that established science is some sort of secular religion, so be it; they are impervious to evidence and rational argument.

anticrank

[redsturgeon]

Moderator Message:
I think this thread has run its course now. I'm locking it.