Global warming my arse

the-smiling-buddha Technically for a theory to be 'proven' someone has to come up with an experiment to test and prove the theory. For example particle accelerators are built to test quantum theory, observation alone is not sufficient to prove a theory.

Experiments are just observations too. This is the old inductive versus deductive debate. A single observation that contradicts a theory is sufficient to negate it. Any number of observations that supports a theory do not prove it.

I think it is probably more correct to say that AGW is a scientific theory that is backed by a large corpus of data and observation, giving it a very low (discountable?) probability of being wrong.

Science is really about theories, not facts. But that certainly dioes not mean that we should ignore everything that science tells us. If we did that, we wouldn't have bikes to ride around on. We should act as if theories ARE facts; when we are sufficiently convinced of them. The IPCC style of review and consensus building is an extremely effective way of deciding which theories are worth regarding as facts.