Prosecutor: Your honor, members of the jury, we have a guy with an IQ here. An expert witness. He knows all kinds of things about climate change. After I ask him a few questions you jury members will be asked to decide whether climate change is guilty of being man made and what everyone ought to have to do to keep it from happening. Professor Honest-to-Goodness, have you compiled data and examined it enough to form an opinion that climate change is happening?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Yes. Climate change appears to be happening.
Prosecutor: Have you created any hypothesis to explain why this might be happening?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Of course I have. Hundreds, thousands of hypotheses are possible to explain ever piece of that data leading me to conclude climate change is happening.
Prosecutor: Have you tested those hypotheses?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Um, well, I’ve tested one of them. It would take forever to test all of them, and every time one’s tested the additional data the testing provides brings in more hypotheses to explain the data.
Prosecutor: And did you reach any conclusions from the hypothesis you tested.
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Well, it’s entirely possible man is contributing to the current climate changes, though it’s not absolutely certain what those climate changes actually are. Climate change isn’t fully understood at this time.
Prosecutor: Ah ha. So your test of the hypothesis did show beyond a reasonable doubt that climate change is happening? And a preponderance of the part of the evidence you believe you understand supports the hypothesis might be contributing to that climate change?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Um. There’s a strong possibility that might explain the parts we do understand about it.
Prosecutor: Thank you Professor Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist. Your honor, members of the jury, I rest my case. What we have here is prima faci evidence man is contributing to devastating climate change. I suggest we dismiss this expert and call in some social engineers to recommend the appropriate penalties we can’t enforce in order to make the weather better.
Judge: Members of the jury, you’ve heard the evidence. Now I instruct you to go to the jury room and decide the case based only on the evidence before you. Decide whether we have a preponderance of evidence [somewhat bad], or beyond a reasonable doubt [a lot worse]. Afterward you’ll all be asked to give television interviews explaining how you arrived at your verdict.
Old Jules
So Far From Heaven 
Jules, you are flying blind and WITHOUT a license again only this time you just crashed and burnt because you tried to land with Bullshit mountain guidance!
Anonymous: Ad hominen’s the word you’re searching for. Great refutation. Thanks for the visit. J
Incidently, was it 1965? 1966? Port Lavaca/Point Comfort, Texas? You running around with a backpack loaded with rocks getting into shape to go join the Israeli army?
——
For the benefit of those of you who follow comments here, this particular ‘anonymous’ used to be leanpower back before he became anonymous. Made a career out of either developing, or marketing military weaponry. Served in the Israeli Defense Forces sometime back 40 years-or-so ago. Naturally he’s a man with a lot of hostility and anger, as you’d expect from someone looking back on how he spent his life. Cut him some slack if he comes across as obnoxious. Likely there’s never been a moment in his life he wasn’t, given the values reflected in the life choices he made. J
This cracked me up. Thanks for the morning cackle.
Hi Tess: Thanks for coming by. J
I can’t decide which entertained me more – your post or the explanation of “anonymous”. Thanks for the chuckle.
Hi Trapper Gale. Thanks for coming by. Old Anonymous is a man everyone probably comes to know without having to look too hard to find him. Gracias, J
Mr. Sun (alias Ole Sol) should have been called as a whitness for the defense. He has a lot to do with global warming.
Hi DizzyDick: Old Sol might have confused the minds of the jury. The judge and prosecutor didn’t need anything to do that. The important thing was them coming up with the right verdict and the television interviews afterward with them solemnly gazing into the cameras and expressing deep concern. Gracias, J
Sorry, can’t come up with a guilty verdict to save my soul. I caught the prosecutor putting words in the witness’s mouth. They like to do that to confuse the jury. Great stories for a few laughs and I know anonymous or his twin. Blessings.
Mary: It’s okay. The cameras will dub in the jury comments. Gracias, J