Disproving climate change is virtually impossible. Every scientist agree that climate changes, it has done so in the past, will do in the future and is doing it in the present.

That is not an interesting question.

The interesting questions are:

- Is climate changing in a different way (faster, for example) than it has done in the past?

- Do humans have anything to do with it? Is it caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2?

- Will this change be negative?

- If the change is negative (be it man-made or not), can we stop it?

- If we can stop this climate change, how much will it cost? Will this money better spent stopping climate or is a better strategy to adapt to this change?

- Do we understand climate physics well enough to create models that can predict the climate of the future?

This last question is important, because if we can not produce a model that can predict the future well enough, all the other questions are irrelevant. And it seems that predictions of the models and reality are showing quite significant discrepancies: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-...

So it's not black or white, yes or no, good or bad. As usually it is in science. Name-calling, appealing to consensus, arguments of authority… those are never the result of science at work.