text: Mark, there's been no published evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis. I can't cite negative (a lack of) evidence, that's the whole point; a lack of evidence. There's just nothing positive, no confirming observation.
  
  Physics, and specifically thermodynamics, are evidence based sciences. If a person advances a hypothesis, they're required to present a repeatable experiment that supports it, or at the very least repeatable observation of the natural world. That hasn't happened. 
  
  Can you cite a single published paper that has repeatably shown a causal relation between CO2 and temperature? No. You can't. None exist.
  
  It's not the job of a critique to prove the AGW hypothesis wrong; it's the job of the investigator to prove it right. That's the fundamental mechanism of the scientific method.