I second Tristanc's post. Like TapD, you have made an unsubstantiated assertion. What's more you make that statement against a very large body of longstanding peer reviewed scientific work. If a credible scientist had dis-proven this, we'd have seen it. They haven't.
but do your best.
on your other point:
scientists research and prepare peer reviewed papers that report their findings;
those papers are frequently challenged and rebutted by further science;
the implications of those papers that survive that testing, together and individually are summarised and further scientifically and politically tested in preparing the IPCC reports - and a very dry document is produced, on what is now a very large and longstanding, well tested body of science. It is watered down politically - read Science as a Contact Sport - but it's there.
that is Science
those that deny the science put up web site blogs, think tanks, lobbyists and the like and are not systematically subject to verification by any mechanism like peer review. they have been shown to repeatedly reiterate falsehoods.
denialists deny science and are subject only to free speech - they can and do say what they like, with no necessary substance to what they say.
scientists publish carefully researched and tested science
who are warmists?
some of us comment on the science, "report it", answer questions about it. Maybe we should be simply considered pro-science? or science literate? Or just well informed, on the science, to varying degrees - pardon the pun?
for every credible scientist that credibly refutes an aspect of the science you will find an amended area of the body of scientific work. that is the peer review process. Since that has been going on now for decades it's a robust body of work
and no, that does not necessarily mean that the science is rebutted by a single wrong assumption
this is not a single theory undermined by a single wrong assumption
except perhaps if the action of greenhouse gasses was proven to be not be as the physics has deduced and experiment and observation has confirmed, repeatedly. The bulk of the scientific work is now quantifying the impacts. In the meantime, many decades on, no credible party has rebutted the key underlying science. sure work in some area of researching expected impacts may be overturned, and has been. That sort of correction changes some aspect of the understood impacts of climate change. And that goes on with peer reviewed science every single day.
One wrong assumption of importance: right now we are finding that the ice sheets are more likely to melt than was expected. And yes that is because an incorrect assumption was made. Scientists assumed the politicians would listen to them, recognise the risks and costs and move to abate greenhouse gas emissions. Now they have to assume that higher levels of emissions are possible and research further what greater impacts can now expected for those higher emissions. There's a wrong assumption for you. Sea level rises are now likely to be much higher than previously forecast by the scientists. But that depends, to some extent, on what action is taken to mitigate emissions levels.
