You are correct that “science” needs to be replicable. And to properly replicate an experiment, other scientists and researchers need to be able to repeat the experiment, exactly as the original researcher did.
In order to do that, the originator of the claim needs to release the exact data used, explain (or show) what he did with it, show the results, then offer conclusions. (Over simplification.)
The AGW “scientists” offer conclusions and sometimes show what they claim is the results, but strongly resist releasing the first two. The little that has been pried loose includes mistakes or what I regard as falsified data. No one outside the AGW clique knows how reliable the unrevealed data is and the programs we have seen that were used to create the computer models are hopless kludges.
People who think for themselves regard AGW as unsupported and unproven. Junk science. Quakery.
