How Scientific Is Climate Science? What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global wa...

While there is nothing wrong with questioning a theory or the processes by which the theory is "proven", one can not assume that the theory is incorrect until it is proven wrong. While his analysis opens questions to the foundation of the current climate debate he doesn't offer a counter theory with experiments which conclude that the theory is wrong. In the scientific method one can call attention to flaws in a theory, yet in order to prove the theory incorrect one must go about creating and conducting experiments what "show" that theory to be incorrect. I wish that those who feel climate change is not occurring would give evidence in a form that follows the scientific method. Then I would at least have the evidence and method upon which I base my understanding. This is what seems to be lacking in the current debate. The current debate is only, "I'm right, you're wrong."

I don't disagree with any of that. Submitted largely as "food for thought". You bring up an interesting point though. How valid would any assertion be if he were to base it on a statistical analysis of data that has been admitted to have been falsified?