"Booger, you don't even read my posts, apparently."

Actually, it is you who doesn't read your own posts, or just don't understand what the words you write mean.

Perfect example"

"I've said over and over that nothing in science is proven. Proofs are for mathematics. What I wrote is that the chances that the GW hypothesis is incorrect are low and get lower every year as more data is collected."

First you say nothing in science, followed by proofs are for mathematics, followed by you prediction of chances, which cannot be accomplised without mathimatics or good science used together.

Since no one can say for sure that the science available can attribute the current state of GW to man made causes in any significant way, you have come up with some formula in your head that assumes the chances are good that doom will follow if man stays on his current course. Chances/odds are based upon mathimatical formulas. Don't hesitate to show howyou came to the conlusion, mathematically, that the chances are that the hypothesis is incorrect. Good luck.

"Evolution "may" not be true either, but I wouldn't be making any trillion-dollar bets against it."

I wouldn't bet on too heavily macroevoultion. There is no physical evidence to sustain it. If there was, why has there been no newly evolved animal species observed to date?