, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: Eh, no,. I can disprove your theory with observations.

Err, no, You can't "disprove scientific theories". You can only propose evidence that leads to a new model (or theory) being made.

If this was not the case, then all of physics is currently disproved, because we know for a fact that the rate of expansion of the universe doesn't match the current data on how much everything weighs - hence the whole fuss about dark matter and dark energy - none of which we have empirical evidence for at the moment.

Since people are clearly still using physics (rather than starting a mass physics textbook-burning exercise) we can clearly see that the emphasis in science is not on "proving" or "disproving" models (since they're all empirical models anyway, so you can never "prove" a scientific theory), but rather on coming up with new models that might be better, and then systematically and rigorously testing them.

Once a new model has been found that matches the data we have and makes predictions that turn out to be true, this new model of physics will become the scientific consensus on what physics "is".

That model will also be wrong, because science doesn't stop. Some facet of that model will need to be upgraded and physics will continue.

Currently the best model that climate scientists have is one that says that people are emitting lots of CO2 and that is having an impact on surface temperatures of the Earth, and that those surface temperature changes are causing some weather patterns to be more likely than others.

If you disagree with the consensus on climate change, propose a better model that fits the current data, explains our observations, and makes better predictions of future events. Then your model will become the consensus.