Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?

[Strange]

I'm not sure people "turn to" crackpot theories particularly. Nor do I think those that do are doing it as a rejection of science. In general, most people don't have enough knowledge to distinguish good science from cutting edge science from bad/pseudo science. (And maybe science educators and writers are partly to blame for that. But teaching critical thinking skills in schools would help as well.)

 

People find fringe and pseudo-scientific ideas appealing for the same reasons people invent them: they are simple and based on "common sense". So they seem to make sense. Real science is, inevitably, harder work and can be counter-intuitive.

 

 

From what you are saying I have an impression that you don't think that it is important for science to be accepted by general public. Yes, science is valid without this acceptance, but does it have a purpose then?

 

Of course science has a purpose without public acceptance. I think people should have some understanding of the scientific method (because critical thinking skills can be useful in everyday life) and science history (so they understand how we got to where we are) and modern scientific research (so they know where and why money is being spent on it). And all of those things because they are just damned interesting.

 

If they have a good acceptance and understanding of science and its importance, then perhaps they are more likely to elect governments who will support science.

 

However, even if they don't, most western countries are based on representative democracy which means that, in part, we elect people who will make some decisions for us based on expert advice, etc. So we don't need to spend our own time deciding which ballet company or sport should get support, which public transport scheme will be most efficient in the next century, or which areas of science will get funded. They, and their expert advisers, will act as our representatives and make those decisions for us.

[sunshaker]

I remember watching a program following some scientists into their homes, Most seemed like children did not understand the world they lived in, could not do basic tasks using washing machines etc, Do we call these "ignorants"?

 

Scientists in my opinion can be focused in narrow fields, reminds me a bit like "Autism", perhaps where this lack of communication skills comes from.

 

a computer can be programmed for certain tasks and working out complex math problems, Computers are not living or classed as a life form, should we redefine scientists to a bracket somewhere between a life form /machine ?

 

It amazes me how this term crackpottery/crackpots gets banded about, Not long ago if you believed in multiverses you where a crackpot now it is fast becoming mainstream science,

 

crackpots who where right

http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/

 

Some of these where treated terribly by the science community, only to be proved right sometimes many years later, and others taking the credit/noble prizes for their work.

 

I think there are a lot of people/scientists who ought to think twice before spouting crackpottery about, just because they do not understand or believe or takes them out of their "comfort zone",

 

Get what some call the "common man" interested in "science", without putting them down ignorant/stupid/lazy etc, when they are none of these, having their own "SKILLS" adapted to their environments.

Perhaps then more public money will be redirected towards science projects

 

If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.

Edited November 14, 2014 by sunshaker

[Strange]

 

crackpots who where right

 

I looked at a few of those. NONE of them are crackpots. (I don't know if any of them were labelled crackpots by their contemporaries, but I doubt it.) The ones I read were scientists who had radical new ideas. Science, quite rightly, rejected these initially. (An argument could be made that it is those clinging on to the old theory that are closer to crackpots!)

 

The idea was quickly labelled as outrageously wrong and his opponents set to work to discredit it.

 

Yes, that is how science works.

 

The problem with crackpots is not that they have ideas which are wrong; it is that they reject the scientific method. They reject evidence (unless they can make it fit with their "theory"). They reject criticism. They reject objective, quantifiable tests. And so on. Basically, they are not just "not scientists", they are anti-scientists who reject analysis and critical thinking.

 

Apart from that, the entire series of articles is based on the same old, tired logical fallacy that has been brought up several times already in this thread: just because some new ideas were initially rejected does not mean that all rejected ideas should be treated as credible. A variant of the Galileo Gambit.

 

 

Get what some call the "common man" interested in "science", without putting them down ignorant/stupid/lazy etc,

 

I agree completely. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the thread. (Apart from those people who refuse to learn about science and prefer to make up their own random, unsupported ideas.)

Edited November 14, 2014 by Strange

[physica]

I remember watching a program following some scientists into their homes, Most seemed like children did not understand the world they lived in, could not do basic tasks using washing machines etc, Do we call these "ignorants"?

Documentaries try and make good TV, they aren't so interested in the truth if it lowers the ratings. I've had experience of 3 universities, live with a scientist, am a scientist and lost count of how many scientists I've socialised with. Most of them (including me) can cook and socialise. I also worked in the emergency room for 4 years at a hospital and if i wanted to make "good" TV i could find a selection of patients who aren't scientists who can't cook and do basic tasks.

 

 

Some of these where treated terribly by the science community, only to be proved right sometimes many years later, and others taking the credit/noble prizes for their work.

This is science. Even when Einstein was famous and an established academic people still refuted his claims. Bohr argued with Einstein over entanglement. Again I know many scientists who have been put through to coals when proposing something. This is the scientific method. The difference between a scientist and a crackpot is that the scientist is smart enough to know that this is essential for the scientific method. They try and improve it, crackpots make it personal and then wallow when it gets heated. If someone handles a situation badly they are more likely to have bad experiences. A broken clock is right twice a day... does that mean we should rely on the clock all day to get the time???? NO They get treated just like everyone else. If an established scientist come up with the same standards as a crackpot they would be dismissed. What people are saying when they sympathise with crackpots is that they should have to work as hard as other people when it comes to accepting their ideas. Us dumb scientists had to go to university for years, learn what's already been proved and sit exams on it. Yet a crackpot expects the same audience when he's thought about it for a couple of months and never tested it. In my experience crackpots are the most arrogant people yet they claim scientists to be arrogant.

Edited November 14, 2014 by physica

[Phi for All]

If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.

 

This is a common misconception. It's why sound bytes work so well on the general public, because they've been led to believe there is a simple explanation for everything.

 

I've said it before, but science is like a jigsaw puzzle stamped from the layers of an onion. Knowing how one piece fits often requires you to know how several earlier pieces fit on a different layer. Crackpots don't like the depth of understanding, or rather the steps needed to get there, mainly because they believe this little aphorism about explaining things simply, with just words. Then they end up trying to look at a single layer of the jigsaw puzzle, and conclude that it must be wrong, that elitist scientists are just trying to make fortune and fame, and that there must be a simpler explanation than trying to unravel the whole onion.

[Strange]

(An argument could be made that it is those clinging on to the old theory that are closer to crackpots!)

 

I said this as a sort of joke, but thinking about it some more, there is some truth in it. At some point, Those clinging to the old theory despite the overwhelming evidence do become the real crackpots.

 

For example, those trying to reinstate the aether (for which there was never any evidence to start with) or deny plate tectonics.

 

Contrast these crackpots with, say, Einstein who always disliked the full implications of quantum theory. However, he never denied the evidence and he suggested experiments that could show it to be wrong, etc. (unfortunately, when these experiments were performed, they confirmed quantum theory).

 

Rather pathetically, anti-QM cranks often quote Einstein's comments ("God doesn't play dice", etc.) as "evidence" that quantum theory must be wrong. This just shows how disconnected they are from the meaning of scientific evidence. It is also an appeal to authority, which is ironic as they like to claim that theories are only accepted because Einstein or Darwin or whoever "said so".

[elfmotat]

 

As you identified, I argued that the perceived elitism of scientific community might be another reason to push ordinary people toward creationism or other crackpots. I express both concerns: that this elitism might only be perceived (unreal) because scientific answers are not acceptable by an ordinary person (this is the 'no-win' situation); but also that the elitist behavior might really exist in the scientific community (because of the "why should we care if they are not capable to understand this" stance that I felt several times in this thread, although it was never said directly).

 

I think you're excusing the crackpots too readily, implying it's not really their fault that they think/say the nonsense that they do. There is nothing elitist about demanding that people actually learn physics before they try to discuss the cutting-edge of physics. It's not as if this is top-secret information that only a select few have access to! Anyone with internet or library access can learn this stuff. I am not a physicist. Physics is not even my major, yet I know a great deal of physics. I spent a fair amount of time learning it because it's interesting to me. It's frankly a bit insulting to suggest that our conversations should be dumbed-down to placate people who haven't put in any time or effort.

 

If you want to play ball then you need to learn how to play ball. Crackpots are like children who like to pretend they're Derek Jeter. Sure it's imaginative, but in the real world that doesn't count for much.

[Klaynos]

What always amazes me is it takes between 5 and 10 years of post school education to become proficient in one area of science, why should at random member of the public be able to understand it in a few sentences?

[Danijel Gorupec]

 

I think you're excusing the crackpots too readily, implying it's not really their fault that they think/say the nonsense that they do. There is nothing elitist about demanding that people actually learn physics before they try to discuss the cutting-edge of physics. It's not as if this is top-secret information that only a select few have access to! Anyone with internet or library access can learn this stuff. I am not a physicist. Physics is not even my major, yet I know a great deal of physics. I spent a fair amount of time learning it because it's interesting to me. It's frankly a bit insulting to suggest that our conversations should be dumbed-down to placate people who haven't put in any time or effort.

 

If you want to play ball then you need to learn how to play ball. Crackpots are like children who like to pretend they're Derek Jeter. Sure it's imaginative, but in the real world that doesn't count for much.

Hi elfmotat...

Oh no, this is a misunderstanding. I am not excusing crackpots, not at all. When I say 'ordinary people' I think about deliberate ignorants that make majority of population. Those ordinary people will not pretend that they understand real physics better than physicists. But still these ordinary people must make this hard decision - where to put their money and faith. This decision is hard because a deliberate ignorant simply cannot know if he/she is dealing with crackpot or science ideas. Therefore he/she will decide solely on the basis of his/hers 'feeling'.

 

Science must do anything possible to win those ordinary people over crackpots. That is why I think that any possible elitism from science side is very dangerous - might look insulting to an ordinary deliberate ignorant influencing his/her decision. As I said, the science is already in hard position because it will look elitist even when is giving honest answers. Crackpots are in easier position to seduce.

[John Cuthber]

"Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?"

have you seen the "religion" sub-forum?

[Delta1212]

"Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?"

have you seen the "religion" sub-forum?

Not with my own eyes, but I know it my heart that it's there all the same.

[sunshaker]

unless you agree in this thread to call people "crackpots" your rep goes down.

 

I like to see even the way out theories, which I can take our leave, but I DO NOT PUT THEM DOWN, Nothing is yet proven.

Some people cannot bend they just "snap".,

 

Carry on with your thread, slapping yourselves on the back,

how superior you are, to us poor ignorants.

 

Shame on you, Shame on science.

 

Everyone is allowed an opinion, if you do not understand that, you will never really understand anything.

 

In the end, most what is known today will be proved "wrong".

[John Cuthber]

unless you agree in this thread to call people "crackpots" your rep goes down.

 

I like to see even the way out theories, which I can take our leave, but I DO NOT PUT THEM DOWN, Nothing is yet proven.

Some people cannot bend they just "snap".,

 

Carry on with your thread, slapping yourselves on the back,

how superior you are, to us poor ignorants.

 

Shame on you, Shame on science.

 

Everyone is allowed an opinion, if you do not understand that, you will never really understand anything.

 

In the end, most what is known today will be proved "wrong".

I love to see "way out" theories too.

That's not crackpottery.

Crackpots are the ones who refuse to debate, ignore evidence and are unable to support their "beliefs" in any way.

It's true that much of what is currently believed to be true will be shown to be wrong (or, at least, not the whole story).

That's not the same as saying "the moon is made of cheese- that's why rockets never went there!"

And there is no shame in science distinguishing between off-the-wall, but plausible, theories and utter nonsense.

labelling the latter as "crackpot" may not be helpful- but it's not going to do science per se any harm because the crackpots have nothing to do with science.

Edited November 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

I like to see even the way out theories,

 

Sigh. Why this same old stupid strawman? AGAIN?

 

No one objects to new, way out or speculative ideas.

The problem is not the ideas.

There is nothing wrong with imaginative thinking.

There is nothing wrong with speculating.

THE IDEAS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

 

Nothing is yet proven.

 

And never will be. We are talking about science after all. However, some ideas are supported by evidence. Some are not. And some are contradicted by evidence. A rational person would draw some conclusions from those facts.

 

how superior you are, to us poor ignorants.

 

It has nothing to do with being superior or ignorant.

 

It has to do with a willingness to accept evidence, accept that an idea needs to be tested, and accepting when the idea turns out to be wrong. Are you saying those are not good things to do? How else would you suggest we make progress?

 

Shame on you, Shame on science.

 

No, shame on you for supporting irrationality (note: not the ideas, the approach) over critical thinking and evidence.

 

Everyone is allowed an opinion, if you do not understand that, you will never really understand anything.

 

Of course everyone is allowed an opinion. But we are talking about science. Not all opinions deserve to be taken seriously. (It is about evidence and testing the "opinion" remember).

 

In the end, most what is known today will be proved "wrong".

 

a) No it won't.

 

b) So what? That is totally irrelevant.

 

Actually, no, it is very relevant. How will current theories be proved wrong? Based on someone's opinion? No. They will be tested by the use of evidence. Something that crackpots reject.

 

If we accepted your "scientific method" they would never be proved wrong because you approve of the irrational rejection of evidence.

SHAME ON YOU.

[Phi for All]

unless you agree in this thread to call people "crackpots" your rep goes down.

 

That's a strawman argument. And possibly a post hoc fallacy as well.

 

Your rep doesn't go down because you aren't agreeing with people. That's easy enough to chart and analyze. Rep goes down when you stop listening, or present the same poor arguments, or keep claiming you have evidence but never show it, or because you continue to misconstrue the efforts of the membership to help give ideas a sounder footing by adherence to a proven methodology.

[Dekan]

 

 

 

And there is no shame in science distinguishing between off-the-wall, but plausible, theories and utter nonsense.

 

 

But how can we know what's "utter nonsense"?

 

We can never be sure. For example, here's a quote from Arthur C Clarke's book "Profiles of the Future" . I know it's probably been done before, but's it's very good:

 

"Suppose you went to any scientist in the late nineteenth century, and told him: "Here are two pieces of a substance called Uranium-235. If you hold them apart, nothing will happen. But if you bring them together suddenly - you will release as much energy as you could obtain from burning ten thousand tons of coal". No matter how far-sighted and imaginative he might be, your pre-twentieth-century scientist would have said "What utter nonsense!" He could have told you exactly why it was nonsense:

 

"Energy cannot be created out of nowhere. It has to come from chemical reactions, electrical batteries, compressed gas, spinning flywheels, or some other clearly defined source. All such sources are ruled out in this case - and even if they were not, the energy output you mention is absurd - it's more than a million times that available from the most powerful chemical reaction!"

 

Of course that was in the 19th Century. Nowadays we've progressed. In Physics, you can entertain anything. Only theories that question "Man-Made Global Warming" are regarded as nonsense.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dekan

[Strange]

 

For example, here's a quote from Arthur C Clarke's book "Profiles of the Future" .

 

Again with the stupid strawman argument.

[MonDie]

But how can we know what's "utter nonsense"?

 

We can never be sure. For example, here's a quote from Arthur C Clarke's book "Profiles of the Future" . I know it's probably been done before, but's it's very good:

 

"Suppose you went to any scientist in the late nineteenth century, and told him: "Here are two pieces of a substance called Uranium-235. If you hold them apart, nothing will happen. But if you bring them together suddenly - you will release as much energy as you could obtain from burning ten thousand tons of coal". No matter how far-sighted and imaginative he might be, your pre-twentieth-century scientist would have said "What utter nonsense!" He could have told you exactly why it was nonsense:

 

"Energy cannot be created out of nowhere. It has to come from chemical reactions, electrical batteries, compressed gas, spinning flywheels, or some other clearly defined source. All such sources are ruled out in this case - and even if they were not, the energy output you mention is absurd - it's more than a million times that available from the most powerful chemical reaction!"

 

Of course that was in the 19th Century. Nowadays we've progressed. In Physics, you can entertain anything. Only theories that question "Man-Made Global Warming" are regarded as nonsense.

Time travel is impossible. The pre-modern scientist would have been justified given his time period.

Edited November 14, 2014 by MonDie

[Bignose]

crackpots who where right

http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/

 

Some of these where treated terribly by the science community, only to be proved right sometimes many years later, and others taking the credit/noble prizes for their work.

Sure, sure. Where is the list of crackpots who were wrong? Long forgotten as is appropriate.

 

Furthermore, it is a simple truth that science is a human activity and ergo has all the same positives and negatives as any other human activity. For most of history, there were really only a very select few who even had the possibilities of conducting science. Typically, only the very wealthy or powerful, simply because most people literally had to spend the great deal of their time surviving. Only the very wealthy or otherwise supported had time to sit around and think and try to do scientific type work. This is a main reason the church seemed so active in science -- because priests were supported by the people and had at least some time to do other stuff. Sure, sometimes The Church as an organization took a stance, but fairly often it was priests where were some of the best scientists at the time and they would have good arguments with people not necessarily representing what was doctrine.

 

It also wasn't all that long ago that science was very nationalistic. If you lived in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, if your science did not agree with the current political agenda, in the best case, you lost your job. Or were shot. Stalin ran a very similar regime. To the point that Lamarkism was favored over something like Darwinism and decisions made on crop planting were based on it and directly led to the Russian famines.

 

There are lessons from history here that we try not to repeat. This is at least some of the reason there is such passion about anthropogenic global warming. It is not much a stretch to see which political parties are pro- and con-AGW. Science would like to think the we are above this today.

 

That said, there are still political issues that cloud sciences. This was years ago, and I apologize because I can't find the source today, but there was a meta-study of the studies about gun violence and in the end a very high correlation between the funding source for the study and the results of the study. As in, when the NRA funded a study, lo and behold guns weren't all that bad, and etc.

 

And, really, the gun issue is a complicated one. The exact same data can be shown to support or refute many different statements.

 

So, yeah, all the way back to the top, science is a human activity. Humans aren't perfect. Heck, even simpler than what I wrote above is the simple truth that resources are limited, and many someones out there have to make decisions on what to put those resources into. Even with all the available info, those someones aren't doing it perfectly. Humans aren't perfect.

 

But, to conclude this, what cannot be denied, and the reason that the list of 'crackpots who turned out the be right' even exists is EVIDENCE. Evidence was brought forth to support those ideas. And in the end, ideas that match evidence always eventually win the most favor.

 

That is what is missing from nigh on almost every single 'speculative' or 'crackpot' idea that gets presented. It seems that so many of them get caught up in all the stuff I wrote above plus all the other people have written about above, that evidence doesn't seem to be important.

 

But evidence is literally the most important. I don't care about anyone's history, education, background, experiences, or anything else like that. Show me some level of prediction based on your idea, and how closely that idea matches what is known.

 

That's it. That is the ultimate objective metric of science. The delta between prediction and measurement.

[ajb]

Carry on with your thread, slapping yourselves on the back,

how superior you are, to us poor ignorants.

What is your point here?

 

Do I feel superior in my mathematics/science prowess that the average man on the street? For sure I do. I worked hard to get where I am and see no shame in feeling proud.

 

Does David Beckham feel superior in his football prowess than the average man on the street? I would expect so. Along side some natural talent he worked hard to become a world class football player.

 

Are you trying to suggest that science is occult?

 

Details of science may be a bit like that. For example, a given scientist will know his specific field well. He will know all the subtleties, the problems, the difficulties, what is really established and what is a more speculative. In ailed fields he will have a good idea of the problems and what is established. The further away he gets from his specific field his knowledge becomes more general than detailed.

 

For example, I could read a paper on quantum information theory. I expect I could follow the paper and understand the main goals and methods used. However, I may not appreciate the difficulty with the details, how this paper really addresses a problem and how difficult it was to arrive at this solution. Judging the impact and novelty of such a paper is almost impossible for me.

 

Now I consider myself well informed about a lot of physics and mathematics. I cannot real papers far from my area of expertise and fully appreciate them. Biology papers I am completely lost! Taking this into account you now expect the general public, those who are not trained in any science to fully understand and appreciate the latest findings in science?

[swansont]

My indications for the claim are countless newspaper headlines where "scientists say that <anything cool>". You will argue that those headlines are made by journalists, but I will argue that I see no denials to such headlines coming from scientific community (I only remember several examples, including cold fusion). Why the lack of denials? You might argue that I am searching for denials on a wrong place, but I am not - I am searching for them exactly where the general population is searching for them. Placing a denial on a obscure place is doing no job... Now you might argue that you are powerless and that the lack of denials is not because you secretly like to have the headlines. I will have to accept this (but will remain undecided who else should I blame for missing denials).

How are scientists supposed to object or make denials in the same media where the claims are made? The editors and publishers decide what gets printed in the media. The scientists have no power to make sure their objections are heard.

 

One implication of this is that there are a number of scientists who refuse to engage with the press, because they fear being misquoted or having the story be presented in a way to which they will object, and because they have no control over the final story.

 

 

I cannot agree for the first part. Those people do not need to help themselves. They are good as they are - even if shortsighted. You have the problem because they do no understand you (while you need them badly). Do you understand what I am saying?

If you are conversing with someone who speaks a different language, where do you place blame for your inability to communicate? Is it their fault for not learning your language? Don't you have at least some obligation to learn a little of theirs?

To me, elitism is an attitude, and the dialog I provide is an example how a scientist is seen from the point of view of an ordinary person. In this dialog it is not important what the scientists answers, but how the ordinary person accepts this answer. It is expected that the ordinary person will insist on further details and you should not blame him for this. It is also expected that he will expect a common-sense answer, can you blame him? What that person expects form a scientist is to provide answers... I am afraid that, if the scientist is honest, he will find himself in a no-win situation very soon.

 

 

Part of the problem is that scientists are portrayed a certain way on TV and in the movies — something over which scientists have little say. There is a stereotype. I'm not sure why anyone is responsible for the stereotype that society may perpetuate, or are responsible for actively tearing down that stereotype.

 

If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.

 

As others have pointed out, this is a very simplistic view and is not the implication for crackpottery. There is a type of crackpot who wants a simple explanation coupled with the ability to use that to do science. I can explain my work in very simple terms, but you aren't going to be able to apply that knowledge in a practical way, because I'm leaving out a lot of technical detail and leaning on analogies. What you can't do, typically, is give a simple and complete explanation, and any demands that one should be able to do that are naive.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

But how can we know what's "utter nonsense"?

 

...

 

Of course that was in the 19th Century. Nowadays we've progressed. In Physics, you can entertain anything. Only theories that question "Man-Made Global Warming" are regarded as nonsense.

How can we be sure what's nonsense?

Do the experiments and make the measurements.

That's what has been done with (among lots of other things) man made global warming.

So we know that it's real.

Which is why denying it (not questioning it- that's not the same thing) is regarded as nonsense.

Now, how did you come to ask that on a science web site?

Did you really not know that the way to find out what is nonsense is to do an experiment or make some measurements?

[MigL]

Well now I have to take you to task, John.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am suitably convinced of man-made global warming ( until evidence to the contrary may/may not be demonstrated ), but when have we injected so much CO2 into our atmosphere so as to raise global temps by some of the predicted amounts ( anywhere from 2 to 12 deg for most models, with some fringe as high as 50 deg or even decreasing ) ?

What we have done, is build mathematical models, and ran simulations on computers. Given the available information, these models predict a rise in global temps, and as this jives well with observational evidence of the last hundred years or so, one would have to be a fool to bet against global warming.

That doesn't mean we have all the information needed to build accurate model, so there is always a slim chance we may be wrong.

Do you see how that's different from actually taking two lumps of uranium, slamming them together to acheive critical mass, and then having a distant survivor publish the results of the experiment ?

 

You did redeem yourself, however, when you state

"questioning is allowed, denying is nonsense"

because, you're absolutely right, there is a difference.

 

AS for you, AJB...

Really ? David Beckham ? A superior football player ?

Edited November 16, 2014 by MigL

[ajb]

AS for you, AJB...

Really ? David Beckham ? A superior football player ?

His record in football is more impressive that the average man on the street. Therefore I think most people would agree that his football skills are above average. He can thus be thought of as a superior football player when compared to an average man.

 

What do you think would happen if you played football with Beckham? Who would show more skills?

Edited November 16, 2014 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

Well now I have to take you to task, John.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am suitably convinced of man-made global warming ( until evidence to the contrary may/may not be demonstrated ), but when have we injected so much CO2 into our atmosphere so as to raise global temps by some of the predicted amounts ( anywhere from 2 to 12 deg for most models, with some fringe as high as 50 deg or even decreasing ) ?

 

Good point, but do you realise that experiments are often done on a small scale?

 

So, while there isn't an "experiment" to see the effect of the added CO2 (arguably there is- what's missing isn't the experiment, but the control) there are may experiments that do other things like measure the absorption spectrum of CO2, Experiments found out what the isotopic signature of the CO2 in the atmosphere is.

I guess you could frame the tallying up of the tax / duty revenues charged on oil in order to calculate the amount we have added to the atmosphere as a measurement.

 

It's not just a mathematical model.

Nobody sat down with a blank sheet of paper and tried to dead reckon the behaviour of the atmosphere.

All the science they use is based on observation, measurement and experiment.