> Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would

> Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let'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't have control; for instance, we don't want build two bridges that are to be used by people to see which one fails. So you're pretty much rejecting inductive reasoning in that sentence. The AGW theory, specifically, is not a fact (GW is a fact), it's a model that tells us what's gonna happen (conditionally on our emissions) with the planet. And you can believe it'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. (Oh, on 2nd reading, I understand where you'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.)