Kim. My school is the HQ of Plate Tectonics research in the world. I already brought up the topic earlier, but no one addressed it. Plate Tectonics is similar to GW in a way, you have absolutely no idea hotly contested some theories are within the field, it's crazy, but you'll never hear of it from politicians (and a know of multiple Geologists at my school who do not believe in AGW as per IPCC definition, perhaps because their careers don't depend upon the position). PT is similar to GW in that, we know that it's happening, but why it is happening, i.e. the explanation, is not absolutely agreed upon. Science is not the data, it is the explanation. (Have you by any chance read any of the Kuhn I sent you? I think I referred you to him 4 times, and haven't heard your thoughts yet.)
Nothing about flat-earth theory is anywhere near debates about PT or GW, because it's an non-falsifiable theory. If you tell them that there are pictures from space, they will tell you that it's a conspiracy, and so on. AGW is not like that, nor is non-AGW.
However, there are elements about AGW that verge upon non-falsifiability at times. Particularly when they create projections that posit any possible future temperature fluctuation to be within the range of their predictions, I.e. the models posited are such that one cannot think of any climate behaviour that can't be interpreted in terms of the models, allows for periods of all sorts of global cooling, as well as global warming (hence the rhetoric shifted a few years ago from Global Warming to Climate Change), even natural increases proposed by alternative theories: a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing. What they need to do is: 1) provide replicable evidence for conclusions, 2) present predictions whereby AGW is falsified, 3) statistically controls within those prior to parameters a 95%+ probability. E.g. With Darwin, falsification was defined as an exo that can't derive from previous structures, and in modern genetics, one can define this as something like proving that canine DNA is closer to jellyfish DNA than human DNA. It's actually a lot easier to create theories that have falsifiable predictions if you have a large body of evidence. There's a lot of loose play going on with AGW in this regard. E.g. to use theories that say that "god did it," explains everything 100% of the time.
So what you must answer me is, what are criteria whereby you falsify AGW?
But that is accepting the implicit assumptions in the IPCC argument. I have already made a study of this, and followed and analysed the footnotes. But this hasn't been addressed.
All I ask is that we not talk conspiracies, but talk science and logic. I won't bring up AGW cover ups of contradictory evidence (I really wouldn't anyway), if you don't reduce the discussion to conspiracy theories about oil companies.