To make that argument you have to start with the premise that AGW is science.
Trying to figure out why anyone here would believe that.
Well, consider the similarities.
We are constantly told that AGW is true because it's science and so many scientists believe it. Ditto for evolution.
We are told anyone who questions AGW is anti-science and has an agenda to harm science. Ditto for evolution.
We are told anyone calling themselves a scientist who doesn't believe in AGW isn't a real scientist, no matter what their credentials. Ditto for evolution.
Scientists who wish to be seen as moral philosophers use AGW to justify reworking the moral underpinnings of society. Ditto for evolution.
AGW is founded on models that don't make any sense but are appealed to as fact, even though they violate common sense, i.e., "If you have 10,000 molecules in an air space and five of them are CO2 the temperature will run off the chart but if there are only three CO2 molecules it's all good." Ditto for evolution, specifically the idea that systems of astonishing complexity came about by random chance in defiance of near-infinite odds against.
If the facts change, the "fact" of AGW doesn't change. Ditto for evolution.
There you go.