And show them the faults in the system that collected the evidence, and the proponents deny that.
Which proponents? Are you talking proponents on the "peer review" level or are we talking proponents on the "populous" level?
Rest assured, debate over the veracity of evidence put forward can be a lot more heated in journals than it is in the media. It also tends to be much more subtle where focus is put on methodologies or efficacy.
Sadly, when popularized it gets oversimplified to the point it becomes sweeping broad strokes which are rebuffed. If you want to carry a meaningful debate you simply have to get to the level of understanding the data presented and not accept being spoon-fed generalized summary reports.
The report is a summary report that takes a very hard look at the data level and provides very firm conclusions as an answer. This report doesn't ignore any faults, it looks at the preponderance of evidence. It should be accepted as credible - not necessarily 100% correct, but absolutely credible.
What I found most fascinating in the summary was the statement "it's been a scorcher for all of us" (or words to that effect), which is both untrue (we've had a few hot days here, mostly cool) and refers to WEATHER and not CLIMATE. So, when WEATHER supports the global warming argument, WEATHER is proof. When WEATHER doesn't support the global warming argument, we're told that "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU MOUTH BREATHING KNUCKLE DRAGGER."
Here you must understand the subtlety between climate and weather. You are absolutely correct in saying that present weather is not evidence for or against climate change. Weather is not climate, but the subtlety is that climate is composed of long-term weather patterns. We are not debating that it is a scorcher outside the window, we're noticing that the weather patterns outside the window have been changing year after year in predictable and unpredictable ways. Polar ice caps are shrinking, glaciers are retreating, Antarctic ice flows are increasing - but they are composed of thinner ice more easily broken up during the summer months. The debate of "is it or isn't it changing?" is over, the attempt to fully describe a functional model is well under way.
Which Earth was used to conduct these experiments that provided the evidence? Are we confusing "the scientific method" with "correlation" again?
Our Earth. Which is concerning because for now it's the only one we've got. We have been in the middle of a 200 year experiment where we've been pumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than have been removed naturally. This is the phase where we're studying the results of that experiment.
Perhaps you need to review what is being tested through the scientific method and not confuse it with the difference between causation and correlation.
Observations have been noted, hypotheses were postulated, experiments are performed (and repeated) and theories are made. In this case, the theories that are made are a generalized model which tries to encompass all the observations which were taken. We do not have a completed, coherent model, but attempts to find one does not equal correlation.
The provable facts are as simple as looking at the absorption spectrum of CO2. It's testable, it's repeatable, it's accepted. Get closer to the data.
But, as with so many other things, reasonable voices are drowned out by the extremists--
You mean the ones who keep shouting down anyone who dares question the science behind global warming, calling them mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, even when some of those people doing the questioning are climate scientists? Yes, I agree. Reasonable voices are drowned out, on purpose.
Especially anyone resorting to a strawman argument when the underlying data is accepted as sound. And particularly anyone who argues that the underlying data is infallible because we know we don't have a complete model put together.
Oh, but that whole thing about anthropogenic climate change going on? Yeah, that is on particularly solid ground, at least according to this study which reviews very compelling evidence based on data collected from 10 varied, global indicators. This is good science, subject to good review and based on good data.
