And there we go again with the emotion :D
My question is that if we're all seeing the same data and reading the same reports, but coming to different conclusions, what kind of 'proof' would ultimately be sufficient? If ten reports agree, and one disagrees, but pointing at the one is enough to dismiss the ten, then it begins to feel a pointless debate. Genuine question. If the slightest doubt brings down an argument, and with science there must always be doubt, then at what point would you even allow it possible to be convinced?
Side note, it frustrated me no end the response to the op-ed in the New York Times. People on both sides are guilty of taking their truth as faith, and denying even the possibility of another side to the argument. A backlash like that to an article? Now that was 'shrill' ;)