You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".
We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.
You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?
Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.
I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.
Well lets see here. The Al Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth was brought to trial by a English truck driver. Yes he recieved some funding (but not from Big Oil) help but he believed that the movie was not telling the truth and he didn't want his kids to watch propaganda. He sued and even with the backing of the government of the UK (I will hazard a guess that they had more money than Mr. Dimmock) and the best representation that Al Gore could provide them the court ruled that there were 11 major errors of fact.
Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)
The English suit brought by the truck driver was on the partisan political view case law.
NOT on the fact that the globe is warming.
Section 406(1)(b) English Education Act 1996
The burden of proof for the plaintiff in an English court, far different than American civil procedure, is to show that the MANDATORY showing of this film WITHOUT a similar film that showed exactly the opposite was against the statute that reads "schools shall take such steps to secure that they are offered opposing views"
They won on that ALONE.
Nice try but next time get your facts straight.