Certainly. E.g., set up a model greenhouse system and show that increasing CO2 doesn't increase the temperature.
Or demonstrate that convective phenomena aren't affected by changing temperature.
"Climate change" comprises a causal chain of well studied and testable hypothesis. Including disproving alternate hypothesis like "solar radiation is increasing".
The problem is climate change has become a motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy). If we do come up with evidence that rising temps aren't all that correlated to CO2, then we just change the target to 'yeah but it causes ocean acidification' or 'natural disasters are increasing' or 'yeah but it kills coral reefs'.
At this point, I'm not sure there is any possible experiment or evidence that would actually change most people's mind on climate change. It has become a cause to support rather than a theory.
If I understand this paper correctly, it compares the temperature and CO2 levels on geologic time scales:
> Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
> To estimate the integrity of temperature-proxy data, δ^18O values were averaged into bins of 2.5 million years (My)
It makes sense. Over long time scales, other factors are more important.
Does the same apply to shorter time scales, like thousands, hundreds, or tens of years?
> At this point, I'm not sure there is any possible experiment or evidence that would actually change most people's mind on climate change.
One possible way would be to continue releasing the CO2 at the current or larger rates. If then temperatures and the climate reverse to the state from 200 or 300 years ago then it means it's part of a natural cycle and humans had nothing to do with it.
> At this point, I'm not sure there is any possible experiment or evidence that would actually change most people's mind on climate change. It has become a cause to support rather than a theory.
Aren't you (your way of thinking about this) part of the problem here, or even the whole problem?
You've reduced climate change to politics - certainly there are many people (myself included) who don't agree that it is political.
There are people that say "we need to think about the climate" purely because they are liberal, but they can be ignored, and their views don't change the reality.
Or demonstrate that convective phenomena aren't affected by changing temperature.
"Climate change" comprises a causal chain of well studied and testable hypothesis. Including disproving alternate hypothesis like "solar radiation is increasing".