So, when did plate tectonics get confirmed?
In the 1960's. It was first proposed in 1912 -- more recent than anthropogenic global climate change.
If you watched the videos that I posted a while ago, you would see that Richard Alley and/or Benjamin Santer do/es talk about sun spots -- they have included them in the models. They are able to model the factors, and the results are matched against the data.
Are the models literally 3D models -- I think they are data models; but maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure that things like clouds are data models. From the congressional testimony videos, you can get a glimpse of factors like sulfate aerosols.
Do you know how they measure the thickness of the Greenland and Antarctic ice? If you watched the
earlier videos, you would know. Hint: it involves gravity and "roller coaster" satellites. Comment after you have found out the specifics.
Did you know that there is so much ice on Antarctica, that it is what is causing the Earth to be pear shaped? And the rotation makes it into a oblate spheroid -- so it is quite complex. The weight of the Antarctic ice is pushing the land down a lot, too -- don't quote me, but I think it is at least several hundreds of feet?
There are lots of overlaps between the various fields of science. Madam Curie's work with uranium helped establish the age of various strata of rock, and thereby the times that fossils lived. Geology has a huge part of understanding our climate over time. Biology and archaeology also play key roles.
Climate study involves geologists, biologists, oceanography, limnologists, ice scientists (like
Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State University), atmosphere scientists, dendrochronologists, astrophysicists, chemists, and a few others I am probably forgetting. How do all of these fields collaborate to make a fake?
You say there are holes in the theory -- are you qualified to say this? If not you -- who says there are holes? Those charts that supposedly show conflicts -- where is the data they are based on? Who's analysis is shown on the charts?
Which of the charts that I posted are false? If they are false, then where is your proof?
Watch this Congressional testimony, and please pay close attention. There is a skeptic (who works for the Cato Institute which was started by the Koch brothers, who made their money from oil), and there is a proponent of AGCC. One is leaving out facts, and conveniently skewing the charts; and the other is showing all the uncertainties. Which one is the better scientist?