No. I’m saying that so far, the AGW hypothesis is the best available explanation of the observed data. If a better hypothesis comes along, that hypothesis should replace AGW as the mainstream working hypothesis for climate science.
That’s what I mean by “provisional” acceptance. AGW is, for lack of a better hypothesis, the default theory, provided a better theory doesn’t come along.
But historical continental drift from earlier ages isn’t; it’s merely inferred from geological records, the same way we infer earlier climate trends from palaeoclimate data.
(shrug) I’ll tell it to anybody. Just because there are some foolish people who overstate the certainty of the AGW hypothesis doesn’t justify other foolish people in overstating its uncertainty.
Nonsense. AGW may be an uncertain and still far-from-confirmed hypothesis, but there’s nothing about that that makes it “bad science”.
There’s nothing stupid or biased about a researcher accepting as a working hypothesis the current best hypothesis in his/her field. Hell, that’s the way researchers do research: they consider the predictions and implications of the scientific model that they’re using as their working hypothesis, and then they test them against observed data.
You are making strange claims about scientific methodology that I don’t think most actual scientific researchers would agree with or even understand. Researchers shouldn’t provisionally accept the current best theory as their working hypothesis? WTF? That simply makes no sense. Sure, they shouldn’t make up their minds in advance about what the correct theory is, but that’s not what “accept as a working hypothesis” means.