One thing I have noticed over the years is that it’s usually possible to briefly summarize the best evidence for a scientific claim. For example, what’s the best evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer? The fact that epidemological studies show that cigarette smokers have a significantly greater chance of dying from lung cancer.
What about with global warming? I asked that question in a debate recently, and the answer I got, in essence, is this:
“Science is hard. Climatology is especially hard. That’s why we need to have scientific experts look at all the evidence in its totality and interpret it for us.”
To me, this raises a red flag. Yes, it’s logically possible that there is a compelling case for CAGW which is too complicated to summarize in a few sentences and too difficult for the layman to understand. But I doubt it. The best evidence for Einstein’s theory of relativity can be summed up in just a few sentences. Is climatology really that much harder than theoretical physics?
On the other hand, take a look at pseudoscientific nonsense like ghosts, yogic levitation, and free energy machines. There is lots of weak evidence for these phenomena, and yet none of it stands up to scrutiny. The folks peddling these ideas are unable to summarize their case in a simple way and I have little doubt that if pressed, they would claim it’s the fault of laypeople that they cannot understand the science.
In other words, CAGW is more like pseudoscience than real science. Which supports my claim that CAGW is a hoax.