Snuff, you say: "What is known now is part of a working hypothesis. AGW and CO2 is a working hypothesis, not settled science because the experimental results do not support it."
This is no mere working hypothesis. It is based on known scientific theories that have been accepted for years and are widely and successfully applied in sciences and technologies beyond climate science. Not only that but all the evidence from multiple different sources supports it.
If you are making the extraordinary claim that in your own personal opinion the world's scientific experts are wrong, then you need to provide extraordinary evidence. You haven't. No-one has.
Although it is possible that 'settled science' can be completely turned on its head, it's rare. Somewhat more often new observations mean slight adjustments to a known theory - but don't 'turn it completely on it's head'.
Don't bet on the foundations of climate science being 'turned on its head'. You'd lose.
One example: Before the discovery of H pylori in the early 1980s, what were variously thought to be the various possible 'causes' of stomach ulcers was not 'settled science' - it was more like 'that's about the best we can figure out'. It was generally accepted that the environment of the stomach was too acidic to allow bacteria - this is the 'settled science' or accepted science that was overturned.
Compared to climate science as a whole, that's a very small bit of science - and not at all comparable to the well-accepted and equally easy to demonstrate science that greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation.
