Why Climate Change Isn’t Science
Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned, that our planet would enter a new ice age unless we acted quickly. Magazine covers featured pictures of snowball earth.
In the eighties, we cleaned up our air, the threatened the ice age did not occur, and thousands of people with time on their hands and seeking purpose in life had discovered that they could make a career out of disaster prophecy. Thus, it was time for a new catastrophe: “Global Warming” Well, maybe not so new. Same villain: us and our machines. Same victim: our delicate planet earth. Same threat: the end of life as we know it. Only the predicted temperature had changed.
Global warming appealed to the press’s appetite for calamity and became an instant hit. The headlines wrote themselves: The poles will melt! The oceans will rise! Lakes and rivers will dry up! Farmlands will become deserts! Millions will starve to death! This was big. Government would have to join the fight.
In the nineties, environmentalists switched their emphasis to “Climate Change” This was a marketing move. Global warming could credibly be blamed for warming, but climate change could be blamed for anything. If hurricanes increase one year, that’s evidence of climate change. If they decrease the next year, well, that’s climate change too. Droughts are caused by climate change, but so are exceptional rains. Warmer winters prove climate change, but so do colder winters. (Claiming that frigid temperatures are caused by global warming would sound ridiculous.) “Climate Change” was disaster gold. It couldn’t be disproved.
Which is exactly why it’s not science. It’s pseudo-science, according to the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, who pointed out that for any theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. There must be something within the theory itself that can be disproved.
This may be technically true, but what was far more important was that “Climate Change” had already been proven — by three decades of data, by the computer models of climate experts, and by the overwhelming consensus of scientists.
But those “proofs” aren’t science either. Looking backward, climate change the phenomenon has been a constant feature of our planet. Real climate science tells us that temperatures have been much colder and much hotter in the past. (Canada once had a tropical climate.). For the past ten thousand years, we’ve been living in an interglacial period. These pleasant periods have tended to last for ten to fifteen thousand years, so real climate science predicts that we can enjoy about five thousand more years of temperate weather until the next ice age hits.
The theory of “Climate Change” is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works — like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s relativity — are assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw a wrench into the works.
Strictly speaking, “Climate Change” theory isn’t really a scientific theory at all. It doesn’t take into relevant account factors which arguably have a far stronger effect upon climate than CO2, like the sun, ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of them all, water vapor.
What “Climate Change” is, is a bunch of doomsday predictions. Now, predictions are the critical part of the scientific method. They are what enable a theory to be proven or disproven. If they prove false, they’re also the best way to refute a theory.
Climate change alarmists have made lots of predictions. Perhaps too many, because not one of their predictions whose expiration date has passed has proven correct. Here’s a sampling, courtesy of Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com:
- 1988, Dr. James Hansen. Asked by author Rob Reiss how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, Hansen replied: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…There will be more police cars…[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
- Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”
- 1990, Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1996, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
- October 15, 1990, Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ecological and agricultural catastrophe by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”
- 1990, Actress Meryl Streep: “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away — earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”
- July 26, 1999, The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
- April 1, 2000, Der Spiegel: “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
- March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten years’ time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
- Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”
To suggest that the scientific validity of “Climate Change” is debatable is to speak charitably. But there’s never been a debate, not for want of trying. Many skeptics have called for debates. In particular, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, journalist, political advisor, inventor, and a skeptic well-versed in the details of climate science, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS “Early Show” (May 31, 2006):
“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realizes he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.
There must be another nonscientific reason for the “Climate Change” agenda. That reason may involve the billions of dollars that proponents have demanded for solving this “problem.”
“Climate Change” is a scam.
Reposted from American Thinker January 11, 2019
“In the eighties, we cleaned up our air, the threatened the ice age did not occur …”.
==================================================
The apparent lack of CO2 temperature forcing due to rapidly growing emissions 1945 – 1980 is attributed to aerosols in the lower atmosphere but that would apply only to the NH specifically North America and parts of Western Europe, but not the Eastern Bloc, China etc.
The SH would not have been affected due to the Coriolis effect.
However the same dip in temperature 1945 – 1980 occurred in the SH, but it is quietly being adjusted away:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1900/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1900/mean:13
“To me global warming is like astrology.” I’m not sure that’s entirely fair to astrologers, who at least need to calculate the planetary positions accurately.
The basis of climate alarmism is the greenhouse effect of CO2. However, like the motions of the planets this is well understood and defined. It works to a logarithmic scale, such that increases beyond 40ppm or so have little effect.
The claims of the climate alarmists would be like an astrologer claiming that “Gravity attracts all celestial bodies to each other, therefore we are screwed because the Moon is about to crash into us, followed a while later by the other planets.” – Of course we all (including astrologers) know why that is nonsense, it’s because potential gravitational energy translates into angular momentum. So, the collision could only happen when the orbital momentum is exhausted.. and that will take a very long time.
Climate alarmism is based on a similar premise, that a simplistic interpretation of a physical property must literally apply in all cases.
To avoid being unfair to astrologers, you can say it’s like Sociology.
Al Gore’s Church of Climatology
Popular myth of science is that you can have a proof of something. You can in mathematics and logic, but not in natural science. In climate science you can spot logical inconsistencies especially in MSM, where climate change results in warming and cooling at the same time.
Studies in natural science start with data. You slice and dice it and form a conjecture. That’s right. Correlation is not a proof, but it helps you to find a useful hypothesis. For example: CO2 emissions results in substantial global warming.
Then you establish tests that challenge your hypothesis.
– CO2 emissions increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
– increased CO2 in atmosphere results in increase of surface temperatures
– increased surface temperatures result in more water vapor in the atmosphere
– increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more increase in surface temperatures
– increased sea water temperatures result in sea level rise
– and so on
Previous examples should, of course, be more specific, more detailed. Each of them might be a research questionin a peer-reviewed paper.
If any of these tests fail, the hypothesis must be changed. It might be true in some circumstances, but not in all of them. This is difficult because observations might also be wrong. In climate science bad data is a problem that may result in a conclusion that we don’t know.
Computer models are a special case of a hypothesis. Putting all your equations together could reveal inconsistencies in your thinking. If model’s behavior does not match the observations you may learn how to change the hypothesis.
Panagopoulos, D. J. et al. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Sci. Rep. 5, 14914; doi: 10.1038/srep14914 (2015).
Man-Made EMR is more Active biologically than Natural Non-Ionizing EMR
A large and increasing number of studies during the past few decades have indicated a variety of adverse biological effects to be triggered by exposure to man-made EMFs, especially of radio frequency (RF)/microwaves, and extremely low frequency (ELF). The recorded biological effects range from alterations in the synthesis rates and intracellular concentrations of different biomolecules, to DNA and protein damage, which may result in cell death, reproductive declines, or even cancer1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Under the weight of this evidence the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
As the Planetary Health Alliance moves forward after a productive second annual meeting, a discussion on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields would now be apt. The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects. However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,2 which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists,3 electrical activity in the brain,4 and systemic immune responses.5 Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage6, 7 and cancer risk.8 Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program9 and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,10 confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity,11 the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext
The state will always chose a theory that will enhance its power and tax revenues.
The longest running nonsense has been that a committee of “experts” can “manage” a national economy. There is no such thing as a discrete economy.
The Federal Reserve System spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to prevent bad things from happening.
Another classic post-bubble contraction is underway and it will make the Fed look foolish.
It will prompt widespread condemnation.
The solar minimum is a built-in cooling force.
The public will notice the difference between hysterical threats and actual weather.
The tout that a committee can “manage” the temperature of the nearest planet will soon be seen as venal nonsense.
The popular uprising will mainly be successful.
The ambition to end democracy and replace with authoritarian central planing will likely be denied.
It won’t be easy.
This essay from the “American Thinker” is worth reading and circulating.
Philosophers have been trying to define “science” and “the scientific method” for a long, long time without coming to a common understanding so it’s not a surprise that the issue is not resolved here in a discussion thread.
I’ll just say that most of the descriptions of how the scientific method supposedly works has something in common with how science is actually done. And that little animated feature that American schoolkids all watched call “I’m a Bill” has something in common with how laws are actually made. But it’s very little.
If a high school science textbook describing the scientific method is like a recipe for how to cook a steak, what scientists actually do is more like hot dog manufacturing. Yes, you can still eat it, but…
Who cares what Streep or other “celebrities” say. Carl Sagan however, is a disappointment, even though he was a bit patronising, I enjoyed his work.
If you want to know what the scams anout read “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” by Patrick H. Wood
This will connect a lot of dots.
“Strictly speaking, “Climate Change” theory isn’t really a scientific theory at all. It doesn’t take into relevant account factors which arguably have a far stronger effect upon climate than CO2, like the sun, ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of them all, water vapor.”
err wrong
AGW ( otherwise known as planetary climatology) Has to take the sun into account, and ocean currents and water vapor, and CH4, and black carbon, and N02, and S02, and basically all of atmopsheric chemistry and land processes, and cloud formation and well you name it.
The comment should have been directed towards computer models.
“Which is exactly why it’s not science. It’s pseudo-science, according to the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, who pointed out that for any theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. There must be something within the theory itself that can be disproved.”
Well, Popper wasnt correct, but let’s assume he was. Lets assume he settled the question of demarcation.
Is climate science falsifiable?
Sure. Show that c02 is not a GHG.
In fact, we have folks all the time claiming they have falsified climate science.
Climate science says the temperature of the earth is governed by ALL radiative forcing.
Guys like Ned, think that Pressure governs planetary temperature.
So on one hand you have people who misunderstand Popper claiming climate science isnt falsifiable and on the other hand you have folks claiming to have falsified it.
hey c02 lags temperature! falsified!.. but wait I thought it could not be falsified?
Hey theres a pause! falsified!!!, but wait I thought it could not be falsified?
Hey ECS is really 1.2! falsified!! but wait I thought it could not be falsified?
Here is clue. Most every time you see folks cite Popper, they are wrong.
Here is a second clue. Philosophy doesnt change actual science and folks usually bring up
philosophy when they have lost the science argument. Just an empirical observation.
“Show that c02 is not a GHG.”
You obviously have no understanding of the Scientific Method. The burden of proof is on the person that puts forth the hypothesis. I learned this in High School. It’s not a complex idea to get your head around.
Besides that’s not the main issue at hand, the issue concerns materiality, expense, resources and mitigation.
Indeed, and whether or not CO2 is a GHG isn’t what matters – not to mention that it’s CO2 (carbon + two Oxygen) and not c02 (zero two of carbon) . No one is seriously disputing that CO2 is considered a “greenhouse gas”, It’s the effect, if any, it has on temperatures and how much of that is due to mankind that is at issue. That Mosh has to resort to strawmanning the issue shows that he knows he is defending the indefensible.
The author says “Climate Change” is not science, CC being an assemblage of dire model predictions and associated radical socio-economic prescriptions.
CAGW can be falsified because it has been.
A “fingerprint” of CAGW is enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere due to increased convection from the tropical oceans, or “hot spot”.
Over decades weather balloon and satellite measurements have failed to find it:
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/images/climate4youequator.jpg
Nonetheless the IPCC behemoth charges on regardless.
Mosher, don’t you have anything better to do? I know saving the planet sounds good, but seriously…
Mosher is reduced to what Nick Stokes is reduced to. Finding errors in our logic when he can’t prove CAGW. However that said; the 2 of them provide a valuable service to WUWT.
“Show that c02 is not a GHG.”
Things in physics are quantitative, not just qualitative. To drive policies they must be substantial. Common error in environmentalism is the lack of sense of proportion. Gigatons are irrelevant in planetary scale.
Do cost & benefit analysis of carbon taxes in the western World.
Sure. Show that c02 is not a GHG.
Easy. two (02) carbon (C) atoms is not even a gas at normal temperatures, it’s a solid. duh.
1 Carbon (C) and 2 Oxygen (O2) on the other hand…
In fact, we have folks all the time claiming they have falsified climate science.
science is predictive (falsifiability depends upon have a prediction that can be falsified). People that claim to have falsified climate science do so based on the failure of the predictions.
*YOU* claim climate science doesn’t make predictions only projections. therefore it’s not falsifiable as it’s not predictive.
so take your Pick Mosh, climate science is science that has been falsified (it’s predictions have been shown to be failures) or climate science is not falsifiable since it doesn’t make predictions only projections.
AFAIK, no one is disputing the IR absorption of CO2. The central hypothesis of the Church of CAGW is that CO2 has a measurable effect on the Earth’s climate, and that it is warming. Can you provide evidence for that?
Steven Mosher is wrong and let’s not bother with pretending he might have a point.
Then the answer is to pull a trick out of his own book and directly reply to his post with one word: “Wrong!”
It was a horribly dark period of time, when huge lies were peddled as truth
And when those daring to be truth-tellers were pilloried and worse.
When once- great industries which benefited man were attacked
And in their place rose industries which instead set mankind back
Don’t let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one long horrible time
That was known as Scamalot!
Why Climate Change Isn’t Science
One of the big reasons why it can’t be science is a pervasive and critical reliance on spurious correlations. When these statistics errors are corrected, nothing remains of climate change science. The theory of catastrophic agw and its implied climate action measures are creations of bad statistics. Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/01/14/carbonbudget/
Also this more comprehensive list
https://tambonthongchai.com/human-caused-global-warming/
Very very true. That is why the alarmists have had to resort to cooking the books. Anyone that has had a look at any of Tony Heller’s videos knows what I mean.
Remember the nuclear winter, acid rain and the ozone hole scares.
Meryl Streep, lol.
Give he some credit: she saved us from alar, remember?
No honest Scentist would call it ‘Climate Change’. Such a name is purely designed to deceive and confuse. The very scavenging-ground of the likes of Mosher and Stokes, their natural home. And all the other swamp critters….. Brett
“In the nineties, environmentalists switched their emphasis to “Climate Change” This was a marketing move. Global warming could credibly be blamed for warming, but climate change could be blamed for anything.”
Haha, the hypocrisy is astounding. How do skeptics, including the author of this post, defend their position? “The climate has always changed, always has, always will.” So no matter what the climate does, no matter how fast temperatures rise, it’s just natural because temperatures have been higher before. Talk about a complete and utter lack of scientific curiosity.
Can you imagine if someone told a cancer researcher “People have died of cancer, always have, always will. It’s a waste of time to look at this issue.”
“The climate has always changed, always has, always will.” So no matter what the climate does, no matter how fast temperatures rise, it’s just natural because temperatures have been higher before.
It may well be. In fact that’s what’s know as the null hypothesis. It’s up to those claiming that it is something other than the default state (IE it’s just natural) to prove otherwise, to date they have failed to do so (as evidenced by all their failed predictions).
By pointing out the simple fact that climate changing is nothing new, that’ it’s been happening since climate first formed on this little mudball we call home, is not saying “It’s a waste of time to look at this issue”. That’s a strawman of your own making. What it is saying is that if you are going to claim that something other than the natural forces that have been changing the climate since forever is now in control, you actually have to prove it not just assert it. And to date such proof is conspicuous by it’s absence while the baseless assertions are conspicuous by their ubiquity.
Poor use of the “cancer” analogy, Chris.
A more apt scenario would be if a Cancer researcher claimed tumors are due to iPhones; “Please give me more money and throw away all iPhones and the problem will be solved.”
It would not be unreasonable to point out that cancers of that kind have always occurred and at the same frequency. Thus the researcher’s specific “iPhone” hypothesis would appear to have no rational basis.
That rejection of a flawed conjecture in no way says that cancer research (as an issue) should be halted.
Always Al Gore. Why no mention of Margaret Thatcher’s key role in pushing the Global Warming story into international politics?
Although Margret Thatcher was the first world leader to raise the issue, she never believed in global warming – calling it the doomsters favourite subject – she cynically used it in the vain hope of getting the public to support greater use of nuclear power.
She had just come out of the coal miner strike and the OPEC sword of Damocles was very much on her mind at the time. She did not trust the coal miners or the middle east with Britain’s energy security.
How is that French-built nuclear plant coming along in Britain?
Your title is catchy but inaccurate.
I think you mean ‘Statements by politicians and Meedja Personalities about climate are demonstrably falsifiable and to date, none have withstood the skeptical test of time’.
There is an enormous amount of rigorous science involved in measuring the parameters which demonstrate that climate has changed and will likely continue to change.
There is an equally enormous amount of rigorous science which has been carried out and can be carried out to test hypotheses as to how and why climate has changed and may continue to change in the future.
Studying solar cycles, solar events and cosmic rays can help understand the energy input budget for our planet.
Studies of the stratosphere, troposphere and atmosphere can elucidate how incoming energy inputs integrate into the homeostatic global climate system.
Studies of the oceans can elucidate how energy and gaseous equilibria modulate in time and space, affecting weather and climate for human beings.
Study of key oscillatory functions in global climate can inform mid-range weather forecasting, as can atmospheric studies of polar vortexes.
Studies of geomagnetism, volcanism and seismology can also inform how stochastic events can cause temporary imbalances to global climate.
Climate change is a subject of great depth and complexity, to which scientific measurement and rigorous experimentation can bring some light.
Verbal nonsense is not climate change, it is wordsmiths wittering on ad nauseam.
The title of the article is not quite accurate. Climate change is certainly the subject of scientific research. The point is that the theory of the greenhouse effect is incorrect, which relates climate change to a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And the theory of the greenhouse effect is erroneous, because it contradicts the fundamental concepts of physics: see for example https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Not true, the theory of the greenhouse effect does not contradict the fundamental concepts of physics, the paper you cite is a load of drivel.
No-one has ever said, or can say, that Earth’s “climate” is not changing. (See MIT Prof. Emeritus Edward Lorenz, founder of Chaos Theory [1917 – 2008]: “Does the Earth have a climate? The answer, at first glance obvious, improves on acquaintance (1963)”.
However Luddite sociopaths attempt to frame discourse (“debate” is the wrong term), their perverse Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) means, first, that Planet Earth is entering an irreversible “global atmospheric surface temperature” (GAST) feedback loop, due in mere decades to convert habitable zones to baking desert; and second, that after 4.6 billion years this bizarre effect is due solely to Western cultures’ three-centuries’ Industrial Revolution, polluting atmospheres with 400 parts-per-million (ppm) (.04%) of carbon dioxide (CO2), a so-called “greenhouse gas” crucial to meliorating total solar irradiance (“insolation”, TSI) as it affects continental and marine plant life.
Not only is this hubristic conjecture –in actuality, collectivist/Statists’ highly politicized thrust towards despotic One World Government– entirely contrary to historical evidence plus recorded fact, but extrapolating such a linear result from minuscule proportions of a benign trace-gas has no objectively verifiable (“scientific”) component whatever.
“Science” is three things: A philosophy of the natural world; an empirical, objectively rational means of testing conjectures and hypotheses; finally, an explicitly social (“peer reviewed”) process not for proving theories (only Nature can do that) but for replicating procedural results in context-and-perspective of prior knowledge– no anti-entropic circularities, miraculous interventions or paranormal powers need apply.
Absent experiment, “climate science” is a mere classificatory scheme akin to botany, not Mendelian genetics, meaning that, however credentialed, no armchair academic expresses anything but “mere opinion”. (As Galileo showed in AD 1600, rudimentary testing invalidated Aristotle’s “impetus theory” of motion taught as holy writ by schoolmen for 2,000 years.)
Let’s face it: From Paul Ehrlich’s egregiously misconceived “Population Bomb” in 1968, deviant Warmists’ ultra-reactionary Cloud Cuckoo Land [Aristophanes] has proved a highly lucrative, malignant crony-socialist fraud for half a century. Anyone doubting this need only compare Al Gore’s centi-million dollar mulct with Norman Borlaug, meantime reviewing Australian Robert Holmes’ December 2017 paper proving that any planet’s Temperature T = PM/Rp, his “Mean Molar Gas Law” [studiously ignored by peculating Globulists (sic)] that excludes atmospheric CO2 from any climate influence throughout the solar system.
Said absolutely true, Pyrthroes. The work of Holmes mentioned by you: the original is here http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf is another convincing proof of the inconsistency between the theory of the greenhouse effect and basic physical principles.
One problem with this paper is that Earth’s average surface temperature is only rarely its present ~288 K. At other times, it has dipped below the S-B figure of 255 K, and also risen higher.
Since its magma cooled, Earth’s surface temperature has ranged from about 223 to 298 K, or briefly hotter. The low estimate of -50 degrees C is for Snowball Earth conditions.
Albedo is higher than now during extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations, and was much higher during Snowball Earth episodes.
“Strictly speaking, “Climate Change” theory isn’t really a scientific theory at all. It doesn’t take into relevant account factors which arguably have a far stronger effect upon climate than CO2, like the sun, ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of them all, water vapor.”
The modelling does but not only at a superficial level (considering how complex it should be) but also there is a need to confirm assumptions that should have been proven wrong eg oceans in equilibrium with the atmosphere and so absorbing 90% of the back radiation.
The problem with climate science in general is that there are too many variables and not enough equations to solve the system. One cannot run definitive climate experiments with the Earth’s global climate so one cannot really prove anything.