canvas, you wrote in part:
Quote:
What we consider not to be proven is that man's activities over the last 150 years have had any significant impact on that possible climate change.


OK, fair enough. But science does not prove stuff - it proposes mechanisms that are the best fit to current data. Science only disproves

That is a very difficult concept to get across. It gets back to my argument about falsification. We can only propose things consistent with data derived from the natural world and therefore these proposals can be disproved.

However, and it's a big "however" - one needs to use data from the natural world to disprove. If one wishes to use religion or politics or "personal hunches" then one is operating in a non-scientific world, and one shouldn't mix metaphors (or in this case worlds).

But if someone wants to rely on religion, that's perfectly OK. But religion etc do not (or should not) try to impact on science.

If someone wants to deny climate change or human's role in it, then they should go back to cpa's URL and falsify the physicist's data.