That is a classic response with little content.  Something that cannot be proven is, by definition NOT supported by science.  I have no interest, nor any need, to provide an "unbiased (based on your criteria of unbiased, obviously, or you wouldn't state this requirement)" scientist that questions it due to the fact that every argument supporting it uses limited data for the models.  Also, can you provide an unbiased scientist who confirms the theory?  No, you can't.  One doesn't exist because all scientists are human, and they all possess bias.  Just like your retort, while attempts to sound intelligent, is a factual void.  You deflect without rebuttal.