Why should I accept any hypothesis that hasn't be proven either by controlled experiment or logical/mathematical deduction? The only appropriate stance in such situations is "I currently think this hypothesis is likely/unlikely to be true" and act accordingly (in a risk-adjusted way) but keep an open mind.

I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis?

> Why should I accept any hypothesis that hasn't be proven either by controlled experiment or logical/mathematical deduction?

The problem is that it has been proven but you don't accept the data

> I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis?

A compelling theory that can de3al with the actual data.

Well I guess we just have different standards of what makes something proven. To me there is hierarchy

1. Mathematical or logical proof

2. Proof by controlled, reproducible experiment

3. Proof by predictions bourne out reliably by observations

We certainly don't have the first two here, and for the third, given the time frames, we find that predictions (from computer models) from the past have been wrong compared to realised events. But I suppose if backfitting a model is proof enough for you then you already have all you need.