&gt; Science can&#x27;t prove&#x2F;disprove AGW because there&#x27;s no control, which means that it isn&#x27;t and can&#x27;t be a fact.<p>This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let&#x27;s face it - the point of science is to build models of reality. And every model (except of usage of the world in logic) by definition is a type of inductive reasoning about reality. The reason why we want to have models is to be able to predict situations where we don&#x27;t have control; for instance, we don&#x27;t want build two bridges that are to be used by people to see which one fails. So you&#x27;re pretty much rejecting inductive reasoning in that sentence.<p>The AGW theory, specifically, is not a fact (GW is a fact), it&#x27;s a <i>model</i> that tells us what&#x27;s gonna happen (conditionally on our emissions) with the planet. And you can believe it&#x27;s a good model even without having control (just like you can believe that a computer model of a bridge is a useful tool). For instance, because you understand laws of thermodynamics, and you can measure what greenhouse gas is.<p>(Oh, on 2nd reading, I understand where you&#x27;re coming from. Model is technically not a fact, fact is some observation. But I guess in common language, most of the things we call facts are actually models.)