Is invalid science still science? If so, then was it science that told us the world was flat, and bleeding would cure the plague, and malaria was caused by "bad vapors"?
If it isn't true or valid, it just isn't science. AGW is an unfounded and unproven theory. Science requires the proof of a theory, not just the development of a theory.
Therefore, my original criticism remains. We are seeing an interesting dual standard in the debate. The pro-AGW factions are in fact asking the anti-AGW factions to prove a negative. The scientific burden of proof has always been to prove the theory. Forcing others to disprove an unfounded theory turns the entire scientific method on its head.
And how does one decide whether the science is true? By doing more science? So that original thing is not now "sciece", eh. Funny.
Science is never perfect. Only closer and closer aproximations of "truth". I think AGW is false. But telling me that I have some kind of "double standard" and claiming that work on AGW is not somehow "science" is not true.