There has been a rash of two false arguments made by deniers lately that I would like to address below.
The Challenge is not possible because you can't prove a negative with the scientific method.
This, of course, is a completely false argument made by deniers that are having a hard time dealing with the fact that they are put on the spot. It is most certainly possible to prove man made warming doesn't exist by using the scientific method. All you have to do is provide an alternative explanation for all of the scientific evidence that is itself, scientific.
The claim deniers make is that I am not following the scientific method myself. Their claim is that I am putting forth a hypothesis (man made global warming is real) and it is up to me to prove that hypothesis. By making the challenge, I am attempting to put the burden and them and forcing them to prove a negative. But, that is not the case and is merely a false argument they are using to avoid being held accountable.
The truth is, the deniers are the ones that have put forth the hypothesis - i.e., man made global warming is not real and it can be proven with scientific evidence. Now that they have put forth the hypothesis the burden is on them to prove it. Notice something about this, my stand on global warming is irrelevant in this challenge. The hypothesis originated with them, not me. I could be a denier myself and the challenge would still be equally valid.
So far, I have received thirty-something submissions. Some of them have been pretty silly. Some of them have been genuine scientific attempts. None of them have turned out to be scientifically valid. Let me repeat that point to be sure I am clear: The reason they failed is because they are not scientifically valid. Just as soon as someone provides a scientifically valid explanation that covers all of the observed facts, they will win.
So, tell me how that is not possible under the scientific method. It is not possible because the science isn't there, but it is certainly valid under the scientific method. And, when deniers say otherwise, they are just trying to make excuses.
Climate science is a religion.
Just another denier false argument to try explain away how they can't defend their position to anyone that understands science.
The definition of a religion is something that is believed on faith and doesn't need any evidence. That is the very description of deniers and their beliefs. When someone tries to engage me in a global warming debate I ask them one question, "Is there anything I can do or say that will change your mind?" If their answer is, "No," then I see no point in going on. So far, no one has ever said, "Yes." That one question sure saves me a lot of aggravation.
So, deniers will stick to their beliefs in the very face of massive scientific evidence and will not even consider they are wrong. Scientists examine the evidence and are continually changing their understanding of the science.
Which one is a religion and which one is a science? You tell me.