No, not at all — far from it. I’m not asking you to point out every bit of corroborating evidence to your belief ad nauseum, rather, I’m asking you to begin the science game with its fundamental core — the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To play the science game in the most efficient way, we use what is called a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, to wit:
- a list of observations that would falsify our hypothesis;
- an argument that shows that the lack of those falsification criteria would exclude other hypotheses, including the null.
Without this, you get battling over consensus, and the definition of consensus, or name calling, or simply political talking points. It’s been done, and it’s never gone well :)
So my challenge to you is to challenge yourself — if you believe in the scientific method, surely you believe that somewhere, out there, in the pro-AGW literature, someone has specified a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. All you need to do is quote it, and my falsifiable hypothesis (that such a statement does not exist), is falsified.
You might be surprised at what you don’t find :)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Yes, there are obvious bits of falsifiable science within the scope of AGW, such as the radiative properties of CO2. But simply asserting the properties of a given chemical doesn’t lead us to AGW. Yes, it is necessary for CO2 to be a greenhouse gas, and it is necessary for humans to exist, in order for there to be AGW, but just because CO2 and humans exist is not sufficient to assert AGW is true.