You zipped right by "commonly regarded as correct". Obviously, AGW is well beyond "commonly regarded as correct".
The Scientific Method is not as hard and fast as you would believe. How, for instance, would one conduct experiments in astronomy or cosmology? In cases in which laboratory experiments are not practical or even possible, observations can be used to test falsification.
From
Scientific method - Wikipedia
Although procedures vary from one
field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making
conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments
or empirical observations based on those predictions.
[1][2] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments
or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be
falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment
or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.
[3]
...
..
.
Scientific methodology often directs that
hypotheses be tested in
controlled conditions wherever possible. This is frequently possible in certain areas, such as in the biological sciences,
and more difficult in other areas, such as in astronomy.
References
- Peirce, Charles Sanders (1908). "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" . Hibbert Journal. 7: 90–112 – via Wikisource. with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere.
- ^ See, for example, Galileo 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies, in Two New Sciences.
- ^ Popper 1959, p. 273