[freedumb2003]

I don't like the terms "Climate Change skeptics" or "Climate Change Deniers." They suggest that Climate Change is already a given and they will just poke holes in it.

The entire "theory" does not meet ANY of the requirements of a Scientific Theory, no matter how AGW fetishists say so.

[Jim Noble]

The problem with the AGW “theory” is that it is not a theory, in the scientific sense, at all.

If you think it is, please try to cite a null hypothesis to be tested without looking ridiculous.

For example, a valid null hypothesis would be: “Without human activity at a post-industrial level, climate would be invariant”. Of course, THAT null hypothesis would be invalidated by ice ages, droughts, historical periods of desertification, high latitude vegetation in the Cretaceous, etc, etc.

But if that’s not the AGW null hypothesis, what exactly is it?