[poconopundit]

Thanks for posting these points.

As I scanned Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth book at the library, I was appalled that here was a non-scientist proclaiming scientific "fact" without a single bibliographic reference in the entire book!

I have a point about your Point 2. You said, "global warming does not even qualify to be a hypothesis". Why do you say that? Can't we hypothesize anything? And are you saying that modeling is not allowed?

Thanks.

[Seaplaner]

The scientific method generally begins with a question about a problem or an observation of an unexplained phenomenon.

In the case of global warming, there is no observation, short of a computer model output (and there are so many variables in climate models, that we would suggest that the results are highly uncertain.)

Lacking a problem statement (to a rational degree of certainty), an hypothesis does not yet exist.

If oceans were really rising, or temps were climbing (outside of normal variation) anywhere near projections, well, then, maybe. But they are not, so it's not an hypothesis.

And, if there were such observations, then the problem would be more like "what is responsible for the temp increase?", as there might be more than one plausible explanation.