Here's why:
AGW (human caused climate change) has never overcome the null hypothesis (a basic hypothesis test), that the warming is a natural fluctuation. Why does this matter?
Allow me to explain:
A null hypothesis is a default position. To overcome (reject) the null hypothesis you have to show a certain statistical significance (or probability) that the evidence fits your hypothesis, better than the default position. We’re not talking about absolute proof, just probability.
Let’s use gravity as an example:
The evidence that best fits the law (by a high probability) is that gravity is generated by mass. If you were to say that gravity used to be generated by mass but now it’s mostly people you had better be able to show a high probability that the evidence fits your hypothesis, better than the current default position. If you didn’t you would be scoffed at.
However, human caused climate change has never done this, and the evidence fits the null hypothesis like a glove. Why? Climate change is the norm, not the exception!
When compared to paleoclimate records there is nothing unusual about the rate, duration, or amount of the meager warming we've seen! It always has and always will change: http://goo.gl/L7VAh
By not rejecting the null hypothesis the human caused climate change hypothesis has never qualified as a theory. The reason? Without the statistical probability (significance) there has never been enough evidence to justify belief in AGW within the standards of the scientific method! Therefore, these people who play it as a fact are in fact in denial, of the scientific method.
Ref: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
However, the AGW hypothesis has indeed been rejected, by scientific analysis.
The peer-reviewed paper Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, recently published in a highly respected journal has falsified AGW. The paper finds that the warming of the late 20th century was not related to anthropogenic (human caused) forcing .
What does it all mean? It means that (again) there has never been enough evidence for anyone to reasonably justify belief in AGW, and now, AGW is: disproved, falsified, rejected.
It means despite the onus being on the warmists to prove their position, and not on skeptics to disprove it; AGW has been falsified anyways.
It means game over for the Alarmists. If you believe in AGW - science is not (and never has been) on your side.
Great post, but when your goal is to control and dominate your ‘inferiors’ a lie is as good as the truth.
AGW is a belief that supports the religion of Humanism and makes leftists feel good about themselves.
That’s why no amount of “disproving” works for them.