I see a parallel between the "proof" demanded of climate scientist today and the "proof" demanded by tobacco companies a few decades ago. Do you know that we currently have not yet "proven", by the standards demanded by the tobacco companies then, that smoking causes any of the diseases we accept today?
Look at this paragraph from
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/...oExplained.pdf and see how similar the claims sound to those used against climate change today:
Publicly the companies’ overriding policy has been to argue that they are not qualified to comment on the health consequences of smoking, but when they do so to create confusion and “keep the controversy open”. This has been done by, on the one hand denying the existing evidence, whilst on the other demanding absolute proof of causation and calling for more research. This research, much of which has been covertly funded by the tobacco industry, is designed to look at other causes of cancer and to water down the evidence linking smoking and disease. For example, the industry statements are peppered by fudging comments such as “no clinical evidence”, “no substantial evidence”, “no laboratory proof”, “unresolved”, and “still open”. Nothing has been “statistically proven”, “scientifically proven”, “or “scientifically established”. There is no “scientific causality”, “conclusive proof”, or “scientific proof”.
In fact this statement pretty well sums it all up:
“The industry has retreated behind impossible demands for ‘scientific proof’ whereas such proof has never been required as a basis for action in the legal and political fields ... It may therefore be concluded that for certain groups of people smoking causes the incidence of certain diseases to be higher than it would otherwise be ... A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay and usually the first reaction of the guilty.”
from a scientist at the tobacco company BAT