Actually all you are doing is explaining the scientific method off of wikipedia.

don't need double blind studies in Chemistry and other physical sciences. All that is done is usually for psychological studies or sociological statistics gathering. Matter of fact, double blind studies are rarely done in physical sciences like Chemistry, and physics.

Chemicals react or they don't. You can't change the outcome based on opinion, and that is what blind studies are created for.

Occasionally someone that wants to create an overkill of data processing might use it. but it isn't a necessary procedure each and every time.

CO2 mixing with water vapor has been proved many many many years ago to cause water vapor hold more heat energy.

it has been tested an accepted. I can't help it if you think you are an expert on so many things that you don't want to actually look the research up.

And yes computer models do count when you are plugging in data over time that cause the predictions to come closer and closer to what happens during the data gathering.

If computer models don't count as real science or the scientific method, dont' tell NASA who used plenty of them to get astronaughts into space, or aerospace industry that uses them to design airplanes that move faster and get better fuel efficiency. Computer models are used in science all over the place to predict things and possible outcomes. Without them, not much innovation would take place.

I wished people like you would quit using wikisites and acting like a real scientist.

Just because you don't comprehend what the "Control group" is, doesn't mean it isn't present.

You could just as easily use your argument to claim that Newton's study of gravity is also flawed (after all Newton could not create an environment lacking gravity for a control group).

So why not determine that gravity is a left wing scam to make Newton rich - and demonstrate your rejection of it by jumping off a building?

Check out the latest IPCC reports. The IPCC is a panel representing climate studies carried out by a number of national and international scientists, researchers, and panels of them, all of whom agree on the science.

Anthropogenic global warming has been officially assumed as fact since 2007, and not a single national or international body of panelists has shown dissent since that time.

They carry out their studies in many ways: carbon dating, ice core extraction, noting observable data (like rising average temperature and sea level), &c. Hell, take a trip to the Maldives and see what their President has to say. He doesn't even consider it a political issue anymore; he says it's beyond that point.

Anthropogenic, by the way. Anthropomorphic means possessing features of a humanoid.

Also one must make sure that observed behavior is not natural in origin impossible in so called AGW

Because in a 4 billion year old planet how much data do we have?

Less then 0.0000000001% of all that time right?

So any warming, cooling, dimming, could basically just be a natural occurrence that has happened 10000 times already without humans and our bad bad industry

Apparently it is studied and what ever Al Gore's scientist says is true, I mean after all he paid them a lot of money and help them get government grants to pull the biggest scam in history. I mean no disrespect to you personally, but right now the last thing I want to hear is Science after Gore and his cronies and other cronies in DC and else where have lied to the world about the GW, Criminals is all they are.

Erm, you're describing drug trial methods, not the scientific method in general. Too much to hope for people would shut the fück up when they don't understand what they're talking about? No?

You answered your own question. The scientists have merely "observed" the global data. Any small scale experiments might assist theoretical development but are otherwise pointless when the real experiment (Earth) is at our doorstep.

Sounds like they studied "Planet of the Apes"!