Any modern epistemological system results in increased posterior probabilities of the AGW hypothesis given the evidence we have so far to the point that extraor

Any modern epistemological system results in increased posterior probabilities of the AGW hypothesis given the evidence we have so far to the point that extraordinary evidence is required to nudge that probability. This is no different than saying "the science is settled on the Earth being flat - it's not". That's not a dramatic cover-up of the flatness of the Earth or a rejection of the scientific method. It's an expression of surprise on the part of an informed person who looks at the balance of evidence for falsifiable theories that fail to falsify. In the end, we all have our own epistemological systems but if yours does not lead to high probabilities for AGW, your model probably doesn't have high predictive value for reality. That doesn't mean I'm mad at you. I'm just as surprised you'd waste your time on it as much as I'm surprised other people waste their time on other stuff like flat earthism, creationism, etc.