Maggie's Farm

Also, that science doesn't operate by consensus. Every scientist can believe or support a theory and all can be proven completely wrong by the most unschooled observer.

That derives from the fact that the more you know about science or an area of science, the more you realize we don't know much about anything.

Not to mention, the pollution of science by "social science" which is faddish and if you wait long enough what is now bad will be good and the good will be bad but always we must impose the current fad lest we all die in a fiery desert fueled by the fat from our obese bodies and blanketed by our poisonous CO2 emissions. Social science and religion are so hard to tell apart these days.

First you start talking about "science" then you offer a fact based on observation. Erroneous in your detail BTW, but we get the point.

Then you associated that fact as being similar to another observed fact. So far no, "science" but scientific observation.

These observed facts are settled. Well, mostly, there is always the possibility more precise observations will alter them slightly, i.e., refinement.

Then back to "science" as a concept but then another observable fact, the increase in water vapor due to temperature increase is observable. Followed by the question, i.e., supposition that is the subject of science and the matter not shown to be supported by predicted observations, i.e., runaway feedback.

The statistical methods are only under debate because they've been shown to have been inadequate, as has been some data manipulations. But also because the models are not in agreement the real world observations.

What is also in debate is the measurement accuracy and validity used to inform the hypothesis. That is, there is substantial evidence that error sources were not properly accounted for, siting locations caused erroneous measurements and that interpolation of temperatures over the topography is not supported by observations showing localized effects. Due to questions about the validity of the data that fed the hypothesis and the failure of models created to forecast based on the hypothesis, there is debate as to the conclusions presented as "fact" by the "consensus" of scientists.