Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.
Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.
Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?
I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.
Please then what would be a solid proof?