> For example by providing a theory that better explains all phenomena that haven been observed so far. This is not how falsification works. If you provide ano

> For example by providing a theory that better explains all phenomena that haven been observed so far. This is not how falsification works. If you provide another hypothesis, even if it was better tailored to your measured data, you now have two of them that work. The former one didn't magically stop working. Which one is valid? (Hint: may be the former, if you account for variables you didn't think about previously, or may be neither of them). And most hypotheses are formed as a cause-effect explainations. How to verify that in a correlation of two phenomena one of them is the reason for the other? Climatology has only offered speculation till this day. > Sometimes scientist find flaws and refine models, but nobody has yet found a fundamental flaw or provided a better explanation. Well, nothing to brag about in this case. Those climatologists claim that atmospheric CO2 concentration is major (or even main) cause for greenhouse effect, yet CO2 has twenty times smaller(!) heat capacity compared to atmospheric water at current concentrations.