Maxwell's equations did not need relativity nor quantum mechanics to be accepted, they only required the acceptance of the wave model for light. (Maxwell's equations are unchanged by either relativity or quantum mechanics.) Einstein's ideas gradually took hold in the physics community after 1905, but there were still detractors. It wasn't until the famous 1919 experiments carried out by others that his ideas became widely accepted as correct. That is because the 1919 results were consistent with Einsteins predictions. The 1919 experiments were the beginning of his fame. Without the experimental results proving the predictive usefulness of his theory he would have remained in the position of Higgs before confirmation of the Higgs Boson. In scientific speak, it was in 1919 that Einstein's relativity hypothesis became a scientific theory, and it was in 2012 That Higgs hypothesis became a theory..
But, from my point of view, all of this is an unimportant side issue that has nothing to do with the validity or non-validity of the AGW hypothesis. I have made the point many times that scientific questions can not be decided by opinion polls. Frankly it would not matter, as far as the validity of the AGW hypothesis goes, if 100 % of all scientists in the world were firmly convinced that Man's emission of CO2 was causing a dangerous increase in the mean temperature of the Earth. That would only matter in the sociopolitical sense. And of course, in that sense, there could be real consequences. But as long as there is a single observation that is inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis and that can't be explained in a way consistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is not scientifically sound. This is the dilemma faced by the promoters of AGW. (And "promoters' is the perfect word here.)
Obviously, the AGW hypothesis can not be proven correct by simply observing that the mean temperature of the Earth, overall, is rising, assuming it is. This is something I think you will immediately grasp, but there are others here who have a great deal of trouble understanding that the observation of rising temperature does not prove the hypothesis to be correct. It merely fails to disprove it.
I'd say you are not being reasonable or realistic in suggesting the deniers of Einstein's science were justified because relativity was only a proposition.
You must be aware there were already a prototypes of relativity scientifically established before Einstein.
What Einstein did was to revolutionize the existing clumsy but nonetheless scientific theory, with stunningly clear logic. He brought to it extraordinary clarity and organization with general and special relativity and indeed, unified established classical physics with it.
To say Einstein's relativity was merely proposition or hypothesis is nonsense. It is though, having no acceptable science to the contrary then or since, the kind of thing deniers of Einstein would have suggested at the time.
In every real sense, Einstein's work was never anything but scientific theory, validated by pre-existing science and experiments.
btw. I did not say Maxwell's equations or quantum mechanics needed relativity to be acceptable.
Prior to 1905, using Maxwell equations, the speed of light could still not be precisely determined as it was taken that light required a medium for transmission. Relativity instantly disposed of that, by which the formula for length contraction was devised. So when using Maxwell equations (electromagnetic theory) with Einstein, the result becomes relativistic and more importantly, precise.
There is no observation inconsistent with the fact that CO2, wherever it may come from, is a greenhouse gas in that it warms atmosphere.
However it always will be possible to create hypothesis with which to refuse AGW, as it is in the same way possible to refuse Einstein. People still do refuse Einstein with their hypothesis!
So no, simply developing non scientifically validated hypothesis , will not overturn Einstein or AGW.
There are aspects of Einstein's general and special relativity that do not predict or resolve everything that is observed. So it is with AGW. To deny a basic fundamental science including the potential for associated dangerous outcomes, purely on hypothesis designed to deny and contradict science is absurd. As absurd and unreasonable as the denial of Einstein's science.
AGW controversy is developed overwhelmingly in the realm of media hype and the politics of it all, not by science itself where AGW is established.
