FP,

You posted, "Actually, if you could prove or disprove human caused global warming people wouldn't be arguing. They'd be convinced by the proof."

I disagree. I run into people who I won't label as morons all the time who will argue and never agree with situations analogous to 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5. No matter how many times or ways you present the empirical evidence, they just won't. Some people are not receptive to logic.

There are innumerable scientific investigations that are nonetheless valid where the experimental design doesn't allow control groups or double blind testing. They don't prove their results and are typically worded along these lines: "a preponderance of the evidence suggests . . . " Climate change and global warming and many features of investigation fall in this catagory. Heck there are probably more than a few fisheries research investigations in that bucket too.

As for assumptions that are highly dubious, maybe you can point me to one of those highly dubious one that is being used to suggest global warming. I don't follow the subject as closely as I'd like.

Sg