Heat Pump.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.

Dear me. 

First, there is as yet no identified “scientific method”, as a introductory course in  philosophy of science and STS studies of the 20th century would show you. Try 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

There are a series of methods which people judged to have been good scientists have used. People have had a hard time putting together what they all might have in common. 

Second, it is not the case that “if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again”. It sounds very Popperian. When a theory is generally confirmed, and an anomaly pops up, there are many things that can happen. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions  is the locus classicus. Again, the above essay is a good intro.

But maybe there is a simple example. Newtonian mechanics is a superb scientific theory. It builds our buildings, drives aerodynamics and the dynamics of road vehicles. But it is wrong, isn't it. 

There is a lot of guff around on climate science, and it seems you have picked a lot of it up. Most of the answers to most of the matters you bring up are by now in standard locations, such as John Houghton's 2015 text or the IPCC WG1 Technical Summaries.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.

Dear me. 

First, there is as yet no identified “scientific method”, as a introductory course in  philosophy of science and STS studies of the 20th century would show you. Try 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

There are a series of methods which people judged to have been good scientists have used. People have had a hard time putting together what they all might have in common. 

Second, it is not the case that “if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again”. It sounds very Popperian. When a theory is generally confirmed, and an anomaly pops up, there are many things that can happen. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions  is the locus classicus. Again, the above essay is a good intro.

But maybe there is a simple example. Newtonian mechanics is a superb scientific theory. It builds our buildings, drives aerodynamics and the dynamics of road vehicles. But it is wrong, isn't it. 

There is a lot of guff around on climate science, and it seems you have picked a lot of it up. Most of the answers to most of the matters you bring up are by now in standard locations, such as John Houghton's 2015 text or the IPCC WG1 Technical Summaries.