For non-Christians, how did Jesus do it?

[Rodion Romanovich]

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature, given that temperatures fluctuate randomly? I am not seeking to challenge theories about global warming, merely to undermine their status as "fact".

Correct, attempts at describing the causes of the current global warming may be called theories, rather than facts. This depends on what definition of "know" is used. But there are a few principles which make global warming far more convincing than religion:
1. there are no contradictions to the global warming model. The global warming says atmosphere composition alterations of certain types will push the temperature equilibrium to another level. The "solar cycles" theories aren't opposing this theory, they are opposing the statement that all global warming would be caused by atmosphere composition changes. In fact, nobody has been able to disprove that altered atmosphere compositions will lead to increased average temperatures.

2. the models used in religion aren't models, they are claims that something is the absolute truth.

3. the models in religion are vague and can be interpreted in several different ways. The models in science are exact. Because the religious models are so ambiguous, people can use them to support any statement they want. Scientific models can't be used in this manner, since they're completely specified. Since they're completely specified, they can be refuted easily if they're wrong. Nobody will say "but this is not how I meant" if someone disproves their scientific theory. Religion can however circumvent critcism by not specifying the models fully or unambigiously, so that nobody really knows what the theories are, and thus can't refute them.

4. Occam's razor, and statistical theory, shows that as the number of variables increase, statistical significance of any "proof" for the model decreases. The models in religion, because of their vagueness, would correspond to unambigious models containing millions of variables - often even more variables than observations. Scientific models consist of few variables compared to collected data.

5. one of the major theories against the statement "atmosphere composition changes are the major source of global warming at the moment" is that of solar cycles causing this. However, as this graph demonstrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
...we're actually right now in a period of low solar activity, which would instead imply global cooling rather than global warming. It turns out this attempt has backfired and this is rather an argument for global warming.

6. the global warming theory is built on theoretical models with even fewer variables, which have enormous statistical support over a long period of time.

7. science has a policy of everyone being allow to express their ideas and disprove existing theories. Nobody is silenced. Despite that there are millions working to disprove existing theories, nobody has disproven global warming, see no. 1. Religion has had a lot of counter-arguments, but heretics, protestants, and others have been subject to extreme persecution and murder when they tried to disprove statements the church presented as facts. Only a handful of powerful men are allowed to question the church, and even then, over history we've seen many religious "facts" refuted.

8. the global warming model way back resulted in predictions that have now been demonstrated to be accurate. Also, when including all factors such as solar radiation cycles, ice age cycles, and pollution, the theoretical model yields the exact same values as those measured today.