I saw someone post to that effect on realclimate – the person asked if there was any model or experiment they could do that was in theory falsifiable. The reaction? They basically said that “philosophy of science has advanced in the 60 years since Karl Popper, you know”. Dodging the entire question like a politician, but still claiming to be ‘real’ scientists.

And yet they wonder why the ‘masses’ aren’t yet convinced by their oh-so persuasive arguments.

Computer climate models do not output scientific facts. I’ll even posit that those models aren’t really scientific, because they can’t really be verified for decades and unforeseen natural variations, such as a a series of large volcanic eruptions, can’t be accounted for in the models. In a true scientific experiment, one variable can be changed at a time. For world-wide climate, we can only wait and compare the various model outputs with the data as it trickles in over the years. Even then, we can’t really verify if the models are correct or just appear to be correct.

And, of course, the media will willing buy in to that lie and propogate it to Joe Public.

Just my little prediction.

John M Reynolds