The problem is you're focusing only on one part of the evidence. The other part is the law of conservation of energy, the fact from which follows (after some mo

The problem is you're focusing only on one part of the evidence. The other part is the law of conservation of energy, the fact from which follows (after some modeling) that atmosphere will heat up when you add greenhouse gases. And, quite interestingly, these two independent lines of evidence, match. (There are several others.) In other words, you doubt the relevance of historical data. But the evidence is not just historical, it's also based on our understanding of the underlying physical mechanism.