P.S. Jonnan - I think that there currently is very little or no method for determining the accuracy of the current global warming claims made by either side because (1) experiments on a global scale take a very long time, and (2) the pro-global-warming side doesn't see the need to objectively study the case because it has been 'resolved' in their favor. So really the debate is one of which side has the better cumulative argument, because no absolutely conclusive, all-encompassing study has been done to date. Any method, in this case, was thrown out the window long ago.
An 'all-encompassing' study. On Global Climate Change. With mind you the definition of 'all-encompassing' carefully passing unremarked.
So, fundamentally, your plan is to set the bar up so high that there is no feasible study that will ever convince you, thereby putting a potentially catastrophic issue onto the back burner until it becomes an actual, y'know, catastrophe, while simultaneously ignoring every other study that has looked at smaller aspects of the problem and in total verified that the problem is real, the cause is man-made, and the solution is feasible (albeit not easy).
Sorry, I put that into the "Irrational" range. Science does not work that way. It has never, ever, worked that way. Science builds up the view of a problem from an array of different perspectives and uses induction to merge those varying perspective into a cohesive whole, building, not truth, but better and better approximations of the truth, which it then uses to predict new information, test those predictions, and in the wonderful cases where those predictions fail take the new information into account and revise itself into an even better approximation of the truth.
To say the "Science is indisputable" would be a misnomer - because Science, by it's nature, only closes in on better and better approximations of the 'truth', it is of course always disputable. The question is never "Is there doubt?", but "Is there any reasonable doubt?".
There is no more reasonable doubt that "Man Made Climate Change" is supported as a legitimate theory of science than there is reasonable doubt that the earth is not flat, that the earth is somewhere in moderate excess of 4,000,000,000 years old, that species evolve due to random mutations of the genome, or relativity and quantum physics.
All of these models can be undermined if you presume enough irrational assumptions with no way of disproving them, none of them (With the limited exception perhaps, of natural selection. Even Einstein's theory of relativity built (IMO) more on prior experiments and mathematics than Charles Darwin, whose observations made such a cohesive whole and predicted so many results so far ahead of their proofs in other sciences. If you've never read "Origin of Species" and "Voyage of the HMS Beagle" I highly recommend them to you.) arose out of some 'whole' cloth, but as ways of consolidating disparate results from previous observations.
But to undermine them does require 'irrational' assumptions, in the clinical definition of the word, assumptions "Without Reason" to support them.
You may, as the flat earth society does, construct marvelous mental contructs that produce the exact same results as our regular observations, which involve strange disconnects of cause from effect, warp light, assume unseen forces behind the scenes which leave neither footprint nor echo, and yet result in a planet which looks just like the one science while behind the scenes these forces 'prove' it is completely different at a fundamental level.
But applying the term "irrational" to such constructs is not an insult, but mere dry description.