The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.
Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.
Global warming is a scientific result from the study of climate and the physics/chemistry governing the climate system. Fourier came up with Greenhouse theory in the 1820's and the first climatological model to show anthropogenic global warming was developed by the father of of physical chemistry Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800's, long before computers came on the scene.
No scientific method? No controlled experiments? Have you ever cracked open anything other than an elementary school textbook? And you seriously wonder why scientists don't bother listening to people like you? "The last 200 years of physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry is all bullshit," is basically what you're saying, and has as much credibility as a prostitute preaching abstinence.