The standard model has been verified in countless experiments, and made predictions that have been subsequently verified.
Opinion is not the same as experimental validation, and I am unaware of such experimental rigor as applied to climate modelling.
You don't get it both ways. Unfortunately, we've gone down the road where you can't question climate science anymore, and that's where it stops being science and starts being something else.
Are we changing the planet? Almost certainly. How much? Unknown. What is the impact? Also unknown. We do know that the climate has changed large amounts in a short period in the past, and will do so again. That's about it.
It doesn't matter anyway - nobody is going to stop driving, nobody is going to accept the sacrifice. Our best bet is to accept the change headlong, and pour our intellectual capital - all those people - into figuring out ways to engineer the planet's climate, and develop clean, high density power that can drive those technologies (that is code for nuclear power).
C'est la vie. But don't compare climate science with the standard model or general relativity. You are wrong.