If the answer is, ‘nothing,’ then you’re proselytizing and not engaging in reasoned discourse.

“One important aspect of science is its ability to question its own tenets. Some people think that’s a weakness, but it’s a strength!” True, so why doesn’t that ever seem to work with AGW?

The answer is it has already happened with AGW. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, first the reality of GW, and then humanity’s role in it, was questioned intensely and critically. The data spoke. The genuine scientific criticisms were answered.

As far as anyone can tell (anyone who takes an unbiased look at the actual evidence, anyhow), AGW is as real as you or I.

The only remaining criticisms of the reality of AGW are fabrications with little or no real scientific merit.

And,

“We don’t want to think something wrong is true! We need to be flexible.” How about adding that ‘we don’t want to think something true is wrong’? Like with AGW.

Erm, because that would be meaningless.

People who have studied the Earth’s climate for decades have been convinced by the evidence that AGW is a real phenomenon. I’m sure that they would love for it to be an illusion as much as I would, but these guys are honest scientists doing their level best to understand one of the Earth’s most complicated natural systems. And their best understanding is that AGW is real.

Of course, if you believe in the “climate conspiracy”, then no amount of evidence is likely to persuade you otherwise.

I would, however, ask you to explain how, if AGW is a conspiracy, it got started.

Who started it? When? How did they recruit additional converts? How come no-one blew the whistle when approached?

In short, unless someone can come up with a credible scenario whereby a global conspiracy among climate scientists could have been concocted, then the postulated conspiracy idea is dead before it starts. Even so, I won’t accept the notion of a global conspiracy until some hard evidence is forthcoming.

If you believe instead that the world’s climate scientists are deluded, what is the basis for this belief? IOW, what makes you think that the world’s best-qualified climate scientists have adopted a wrong conclusion where some random commentator can see flaws that the experts cannot?

Evolution may be real, but how do we prove that the Universe is?

In absolute terms, you can’t. But then, nothing empirical can ever be absolutely proven.

Of course, it all comes down to how you define “real”.

……my friends….go get him

And,

“We don’t want to think something wrong is true! We need to be flexible.” How about adding that ‘we don’t want to think something true is wrong’? Like with AGW.