This was a joke about him saying there was only one universe.
As it was written, it read as a claim that we could measure our Universe by the Multiverse. Thanks for the clarification.
Notwithstanding other planets the atmosphere consists of multiple layers of atmosphere, different regions of the planet, different aspects like storms, rainfall, temperature, etc.
For instance CO2 warming doesn't just explain the earth getting warmer right now, it also explains that different layers of the atmosphere will warm to a different degree, it also explains past warming events.
Our world is within finite space, so we can surely take measurements accurately. Modelling the complexity is another issue which I would agree we don't have. We worked on those in the 70s when we focused on the root cause of what today we bicker over as Global warming. We had regulations being passed and consumer awareness about pollution and conservation. Today it has become all about the corporate profits and the argument no longer focuses on the root cause. Neither side of the global warming debate are being scientific, or logical and reasonable for that matter. They both have the same masters and neither really give a shit as long as they get a paycheck, which depends on their masters making lots of profits.
In other words, you don't seem to know the debate either and may have probably been played like a fiddle just like the majority of the public. More a question than accusation, which you don't have to answer. Just something for you to consider.
Your issue with the multiverse and specialist thing was a misunderstanding, similarly with the atmosphere I wasn't saying it was infinite, I was saying it was way too big and complex to treat as a simple thing.
Agreed above with the multiverse, not at all with the atmosphere.
The theory that Zeus threw thunder, if the atmosphere was as simple as a thing that made thunder then the only thing we could repeat was the observation that thunder happens. But we can test the Zeus theory multiple ways, we can fly up to the top of the clouds and see if a giant is hanging out up there, we can look at multiple clouds in different parts of the globe and see if there's more simultaneous lightning strikes than Zeus has limbs, we can check to see if lightning strikes correlate with sacrifices, or if there are other cloud characteristics that predict lightning. There is only one atmosphere but I just named four ways to test the Zeus theory, its not as simple as one atmosphere means one observation and no way to double check your theory, that's why the observational vs narrative model is false.
What you claimed is that observation is what made science, and I claimed it was wrong. You get closer here, but not quite there yet. The whole definition of inductive reason includes the fact that some things can not be proven absolutely. It is a scientists job to question those theories and find weaknesses. If you claim a theory is proof and a person questioning is wrong, you are absolutely _not_ being scientific.
Not every question about a theory is bad, yet every question is treated as bad by people claiming to be intellectuals. Those same self proclaimed intellectuals close their ears to anything that threatens their belief in the theory, and loudly complain about those other guys ignoring 'science'. The hypocrisy is staggering if you care to look.