Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
LOL, you surely say that with tongue in cheek.
If not, I would certainly direct your attention to the multitude of studies of the outputs of GCMs currently in use and how much they disagree one to the others and disgree with actual the actual climate record regionally as well as globally.
In fact there is very little confirmation of the global warming models in use as "data" source for the global climate mantra.
For given input the outputs of the GCMs vary widely with the same inputs both regionally and in global aggregate measures.
Here's the way I see this coming down and it is too close to the way the so called ozone depletion debate turned out to be comfortable.
First, the media picks up on the notion that there might be some truth to the notion and then they publish every scrap of "evidence" to show that this may be indeed so.
Next, the skeptics begin to pay attention and do some research on what is known so far and make tentative statements that it may be a bit early to make drastic changes just because a few unsupported studies seem to coincide but they jump on the bandwagon of government funding for a definite analysis using the scientific method.
Then, a raft of of newly ordained "scientists" jump onto this bandwagon with brand-new, very loud drums and lead the parade.
Suddenly, the government funding kicks in and soon results are flowing like wine from a new press and we are awash in the intoxicating revelation that we may never need to be sober again if we just let the smarter scientists tend the bar.
Now, fully intoxicated with our new-found destructive power we are made to sober up just enough to regret having got drunk in the first place, so, like all good reformists, we set out to prohibit everyone from drinking the wine because, among many other things, it may be poisoned.
But, as it turns out, it wasn't the wine of knowledge but the wine of persuasion, our old friend, who takes from us our common sense and leaves us confused so that in our now un-inebriated state we will believe the guy who poisoned us in the first place.
Had we simply remained sober all along we could have sipped as we supped rather than falling into a stupor.
The wine is flowing again and this time the presses are running overtime and the poison is stronger.
That's the only way you can say "robust with respect to data":)
If you want to draw a Global Warming disciple up short ask him (or more likely, her) what observations could refute Global Warming theory. Nine times out of ten they will not have any idea of how to begin to address the question.
Global Warming Theory is not unlike most pseudoscience in that it so thoroughly fuzzy and amorphous. It's maddeningly difficult to argue with psuedoscientists because they do not accept the framework of evidence and verification.
Adherents of Global Warming Theory just know that it's true, they don't need to debate the issue. They argue ex cathedra though few of them have entered on the scientific equivalent of Holy Orders. Al Gore comes to mind as the perfect example. He has never even passed freshman physics at the local community college, probably can't even enumerate Newton's Laws, hasn't even the most elementary grasp of probability theory, statistics or analysis. None of this stops him from speaking with complete and utter confidence about things which people with 1600 SAT scores, who have studied the feild all their lives cannot be sure about.