Mhh. But that's the problem isn't it. You research something that has scientific facts and proven methods obtained by observation and experimentation at it's core. If you claimed something was one way and prove it with a slightly faulty experiment, and someone comes with a correct experiment and disproves you then that is that. But in climate science there is no way to do that. Climate could be acting chaotically for 50 years, proving theories left and right about an impending end of the world by overheating, only to do a 180° turn in year 51 to year 551 (not like that hasn't happened before, small ice age 1500-1800)
I just don't see how climate can be predictable, just because a prediction matches a 30 year curve (barely), doesn't mean it's a correct prediction for the future. Unless they tested it in an experiment to produce some kind of proof.
I don't doubt science a single bit as long as it makes claims that can be proven via experimentation or more plainly proof. But I don't understand how climate science proves anything it claims. To me, selective time frame matching for a prediction algorithm isn't proof of anything.