Let’s talk about the scientific method for a bit, shall we?

You may recall, it goes kinda like this:

Something is unexplained

Somebody develops a hypothesis explaining it.

People try experiments to test that hypothesis

If a bunch of experiments succeed with none failing, the hypothesis advances to the status of theory.

Now there’s more testing. Repeatability is required. All aspects of the theory are challenged.

If the theory holds up to all of that, it is advanced to a law.

A few examples: Newton’s laws of motions; theory of relativity, theory of evolution.

Let’s be clear here. Relativity is a theory. We have designed, built, and detonated, nuclear weapons based on ideas in that theory. But it is still theory, not law.

For evolution our ability to design tests is even more limited. It looks pretty solid, but still a theory.

And where is global warming/climate change on this list?

Well, the ‘science is settled’ people would claim it’s a law. They would also have you ignore the fact that they changed the name from global warming to climate change when warming didn’t match predictions.

In the scientific met hind, I wouldn’t rank it above hypothesis. But I wouldn’t categorize it based on the scientific method. I would categorize it as a religion.

Got horrible hurricanes? climate change.

Sudden absence of hurricanes? climate change.

In fact, for its followers, climate change is the default answer for everything, no matter what the question. Just like devout followers of any religion.