> It is difficult to refute climate change because we have incredible amounts of tactile observations that match predictions And yet people try. If this were a

> It is difficult to refute climate change because we have incredible amounts of tactile observations that match predictions And yet people try. If this were a discussion on climate change, someone could link to a scientist trying to refute it and say "some disagree." We both agree that linking to a single blog post that refutes climate change would be unconvincing. Why hold this topic to a different standard? > The so-called "evidence" that is continuously regurgitated is an image of the problem. That's what evidence is, isn't it? Then scientists get to solve the mystery that's revealed by the evidence. Just like detectives solve a crime based on evidence at a crime scene. Evidence can precede answers. Having evidence doesn't mean we've figured out what dark matter is. It means we can put constraints on possible explanations. So far, scientists have ruled out several theories, because they don't fit the evidence. > As it stands, there is zero credible and scientific evidence for the stuff. If there were no evidence, there wouldn't be a mystery to solve.