&gt;&gt; First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn&#x27;t made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn&#x27;t change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature.<p>&gt; Right, and the LIGO didn&#x27;t create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did.<p>You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some
guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event
Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his
predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening?<p>&gt; So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post.<p>No, it&#x27;s not based on superstitions. It&#x27;s based on climatology&#x27;s inability to
deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating
how big values are in play (those that don&#x27;t make sense ignore one of the
basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement
errors, or laws of thermodynamics).