[TigersEye]

To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming.

That sounds like a legal debate but it sure as heck isn't science. There is no need to prove any cause of warming, which is dubious now anyway, when you can simply show that the primary evidence for warming by a greenhouse effect doesn't exist. See post #35.

[HwyChile]

“To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming.”

That is a slick way of preventing people from attacking their analysis and instead requiring them to prove something else which can then easily be attacked because it would be hard to prove.

It is actually absurd and illogical. If this is the logic of science, no wonder they produce mainly junk science. If the reason for global warming is wrong (C02), then one should be able to prove that it is wrong—not have to prove something else is causing it.