Science uses facts to create hypotheses. If it is possible to create replicable experiments to test hypotheses then the hypotheses become like facts. If no replicable experiments are possible then the hypotheses are just some's opinion and subject to bias.
IOW, by giving examples of hypotheses proven by replicable experiments you simply prove you do not understand how science works.
I have to point out again, TimG that your understanding of Science is Grade 9, 1965.
Experimentation is a small but still valuable portion of Science that mimics the real world to test specific hypotheses about 1 or 2 factors.
But in the computer age has been around for a long time now, and gives us the capacity to observe and document phenomena in the real world, in real contexts, record and evaluate a variety of contributing factors statistically and make predictions about future events under a variety of conditions.
Your posts about science are just wrong and should be ignored by anyone actually interested in climate science.