In the global warming debate, I sense that many people do not fully grasp what the “overwhelmed evidences” means. They seems to misunderstand how science develop. One evidence (e.g. experiment result) is not enough. Replication is important. The theory become well-accepted because there are many and diverse evidences provided by many people to support it. So to reject it we also need many and diverse evidences. One disagreed evidence is not enough.

I guess the reason of misunderstanding comes from our learning of science in school. I remember one saying is that the observation about deflection of light by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919 “proves” the Einstein’s general relativity theory correct. This is not entirely true. There are many other subsequent evidences that gradually gain support to the general relativity theory. They are important, but generally less mentioned in the text.

Hope this help to better grasp the significance of “overwhelmed evidences” in global warming theory. It may be not completely correct, but please convince me by getting more diverse evidences. This will advance our understanding about climate as well.