"Proof by exhaustion in a non-mathematical sense is definitely invalid simply because you can’t test ALL cases."
That is only true if you have an infinite number of causes. It is also a fact that some cuases are more likely than others.
"Besides, there are enough cases that prove agw is wrong so it places your total approach to proving agw is right into the delusional world. If you discount the cases against agw simply because you won’t believe them, then you are really using another invalid method of proof – proof by filtering and censorship."
I dont discount or accept things because they disagree or agree with my philosophy. I do so on the basis of scientific evidence. If it could be shown that the earth's temperature variation was solely due to natural factors (solar variation, volcanoes, cloud cover, cosmic rays etc), I would accept that and reject the AGW hypothesis.
"Also, your water fluoridation is invalid since you are using a negative hypothesis, not a positive one."
Umm...really?
Therapeutic water water fluoridation causes harm = negative hypothesis?
Increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming = positive hypothesis?
Cause and effect certainly. But I cant make much of your parity claim.
But you obviously believe that AGW is nonsense, so tell me the main fact on which you base this opinion. If I accept that evidence, I will reject the idea of AGW. If not, you can give me your next best reason and so on. It might seem a bit tedious to you, but that is how a lot of science gets done.
