Manmade global warming was made mainstream by Al Gore. He is not a scientist, but he had a lot of prestige mojo as a former vice president. Being a vice president does not make him an expert in science, but his prestige was able to bridge the gap. The man made climate change theory is based on using the prestige of a consensus to add subjectivity to science. Consensus is not the same as a logical conclusion. Like in a magic trick, prestige help to create a subjective distraction. The basis for the trick, is connected to comparing apples to oranges. The older historical climate data is thin and indirect, compared to the modern data. The modern data is direct and real time and has so much extra advance technology, compare to the older historical data. The modern apple data makes use satellite data, while the old historical orange data has tree rings and core samples. The result is, this is more data recorded, today , with higher resolution between data. This looks like more is happening. As a home experiment, to demonstrate how this trick works, say we had a group of 20 students, all with cell phone cameras. We tell them, for the next couple of weeks we want them to photograph every bird in the city park. After they are done, we will have thousands of photos of birds. With this data in hand, I will make the claim that there are now more birds in that park, due to man, than any time in history. I can't conclusively prove this claim, because we can't fairly compare our data to the thin data from the past. It is not a fair fight, since the past was never addressed in the same exhaustive data collection way as I did. However, nobody can deny the validity of these pictures, as being hard data to support my claim of so many birds. If we assume science needs to be based on the preponderance of the hard data, my claim, wins, by default. The past data from the old timers is very thin and has to relay on premises and extrapolations which does not weight as much as direct data. This is not 100% kosher in terms of logic and common sense, however, it may be enough to form the prestige of a consensus, who are asked to decide based on the weight of the evidence. If can get that, we can to add their subjective weight to the claim. This will allow a distraction so very few will be able to see the hidden wires; apples and oranges. If anyone claims this is not fair; comparing apples to oranges, we use the prestige of the consensus to silence them, since they must be kooks. Magic was one of the first areas of science. It essentially uses science and engineering to set up theatrical experiments, that can appear to prove, that which is not real; levitation. The audience sees the data and forms a consensus. For example, I can use various mineral salts and a campfire, to make different colors; like in fireworks. This is based on chemistry and electron transitions. The ancient magician may know these minerals and colors from experience. He will create an experimental trick where he will use these colors to appear to be summoning the spirits of the dead. He will use the different salts, in different amounts, to parallel answers to questions. The consensus may say he appeared to talk to the dead, since they all saw the color change and flame go up and down, when he asked questions. They are still not sure, so they will look to the elders; prestige, to help them decide whether to agree or disagree. Nobody wishes to be fooled so the masses will look for the safe bet; prestige. Who will believe the prestige of the little boy who says the dirt is talking.