Proving a negative

For 20 years and at an approximate cost of 200 billion dollars the Anthropogenic Global Warming scaremongers have dominated the weather 'market'. They have built 'consensus' by removing or cowering all dissenting voices, much like the Darwinists have done in the field of worldviews, and as with the Darwinists the AGW have had a compliant media.
Today if you want to work in for example, the field of humanities in a university anywhere in the Western world and claim that you believe in a personal God, you do not stand a snowballs chance in Hades of getting a position, and this pretty much applies in the arts as well. In science departments it is the same and
the situation is now being exacerbated by the AGW 'faith'. What is becoming very clear is the degree of difficulty that the (rapidly growing numbers of) 'skeptics' are finding in being given a platform to stand up and argue against global warming because the 'warmists' have cleared the field of any dissenters through attrition and hiring practices, in fact a primary issue to emerge from the 'climategate' scandal was the overt manipulation of facts and people to believe in the 'orthodoxy'.
Unfortunately because these folk have the 'high ground' (power) they make the rules and therefore like in the case of the Darwinists; i.e. to argue for God, requires that you need to prove that God exists (Plantinga has thankfully punctured that balloon), ...to argue that anthropogenic global warming is not deadly to the human race means that you are required to prove a negative, because to argue that the AGW proponents have not proved their case is no longer enough, it is as Peter Smith says: We have a witch trial and the witch has to prove she ain’t a witch".
This is not science, it is an ideology, and these global utopianists are acting like totalitarian tyrants.

UPDATE: from Prof. Bob Carter:
"Given the wide range of natural environmental variation that we (but not, apparently, Mr Al Gore) observe around us, the null hypothesis regarding changes that we observe on the planet today is that they are natural, unless and until evidence emerges otherwise. In this regard, global sea-level change is proceeding along the same lines that it has for the last 100 years (gentle rise of between 1 and 2 mm/yr), the area of sea-ice on our planet currently equates to the estimated long term average, and no compelling evidence exists for a significant increase in extreme weather events. Amongst the tens of thousands of refereed scientific papers that address these matters, not one yet provides data that invalidate the null hypothesis of natural change".