well I agree, obviously, with all except the last two sentences (obviously). The statement "not wrong, but incomplete" prompted the phlogiston analogy. I wouldn't have expected that could be spun to the notion that phlogiston was somehow foundational to modern atomic theory, but apparently it can, and that too is wrong. It's still a matter of Aristotle's rationalism versus Galileo's empiricism. If rationalism triumphs, as it has so many times in the past, God help us all.
The thing that bugs me about the global warming deniers is that what they challenge is mostly physical science discoveries between about 1830 and 1890. Those same discoveries underlie most of our current technology. Yet in doing so, they would declare they are being "open minded", and not "closing the door to new ideas" (as the climate scientists supposedly do).
Yet no alternative explanation is offered for experimental findings of people like Fourier, Tyndall or the math of Arrhenius. So if we assume the deniers are correct, should we seek out and accept on their behalf whatever the Hell people believed before the work of those good men? Should we then declare that in doing so we have enhanced and further refined 21st Century climate science? It boggles the mind, as they say.