Wrong. ANY scientist will tell you that the burden of proof is on the one who aims to prove a positive fact. It is logically impossible to prove a negative; challenging someone to do so either shows a serious deficiency in basic reasoning skills or demonstrates an intent to debate dishonestly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you still need to take Logic 101.
Scientists have presented data on changing ocean currents, on CO2 levels, on changes in animal migrations and plankton levels, and so forth. Those who deny global warming aren't presenting data to rebut these claims, or aren't doing so in enough numbers to convincingly put the issue to rest. The least we can say is that the jury is still out.
Those who dispute the hypothesis of man-made global warming have presented plenty of evidence that rebuts these claims. Historical variation in solar radiation, for example; also statistical analysis of the "hockey stick" chart shows that the basic theory of man-made global warming - dependent on assumptions derived from that chart - is ridiculous. Furthermore, it is beyond plausible to suggest that until we started burning fossil fuels, there was no change in ocean currents, CO2 levels, migration patterns, or anything else.
The world is in constant flux; global temperatures have gone up and down since the beginning. It does not follow to say that because ocean currents and CO2 levels change, that it is man who is causing it. Any study of the data shows the opposite - that the world will warm and cool regardless of human activity on its surface.
Where's the evidence showing that known factors that have historically led to global temperature changes (in the absence of human activity) are not sufficient to explain the current rise in temperature?
Back in my day the first lesson learned in geometry was:
It is impossiible to prove a negative.
It was pounded into us over & over again (What can I say: we were 10th graders. facts didn't always stick.) I was never great in math, but I have never forgotten that, as it applies to so many aspects of our lives.
Dumbing down America has done wonders for the media as it helps them lead the masses. Case in point:
"President Bush to this day has offered no proof he was not AWOL."
Because very few people know this simple fact it is so easy to manipulate the masses. The game is get the accusation out there put the burden of proving the negative on the subject.
It sure is taking ARoD a long time to come up with that proof. Maybe s/he is polling all scientists individually.