You can't "prove" global warming in the sense that you prove other scientific theories, because you can't set up a controlled experiment in which you have one p

You can't "prove" global warming in the sense that you prove other scientific theories, because you can't set up a controlled experiment in which you have one planet just like the Earth be subjected to massive carbon emissions and leave another exactly identical planet alone. So unless you deny that there exists the possibility of major climate problems that could seriously damage humanity's well being, what standard of proof would you have climate scientists meet before agreeing that there is a problem serious enough to address? We can have a whole big endless debate about the various studies and climate models that point to one scenario or another, but we won't get anywhere unless we agree on these ground rules to start off...so what standard of proof would you propose?