To claim that ‘no one seems to have‘ tested any predictions is really very silly. Like any other science, the whole point of climate science is to come up with a framework within which to understand what is being studied. How do you think that happens without any predictions ever having been tested? I’ll tell you just a few of the most important specific predictions that climate scientists have made while developing our understanding of the climate system that have been borne out:

1. that if more CO2 was added to the atmosphere, surface temperatures would rise
2. that if CO2 was added at a rate of 1-2ppm/year, the surface temperature would rise by about 0.2°C/decade
3. that if CO2 was added to the atmosphere, the stratosphere would cool
4. that globally, the Arctic would respond most quickly and the Antarctic most slowly to increasing CO2
5. that if there was a sudden injection of aerosols into the atmosphere, then there would be a sharp but short-lived cooling

Obviously, there are plenty more examples. Really, if you think that climate science has not been all about constructing theories which make testable predictions, and then testing those predictions, then you haven’t made any effort at all to understand how climate science works.

You see, Popper said that the critical feature about scientific knowledge, as opposed to other forms, was that scientists activly sought to falsify their hypotheses. For other forms of knowledge it was reasonable to assert something to be true – for science you had to consider what might prove your hypothesis wrong, and then go out and look for that. Only if your theory survived your own attempts to prove it wrong could you claim that it was strong.

Now I’ve asked AGW supporters what attempts they have made to prove their hypothesis wrong, and none have ever answered me. What I was looking for was a clear simple experiment which would clearly test a prediction made which could only occur if AGW were correct. But no one seems to have done this. As a scientist, perhaps you could help me find such an experiment?

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],”

Is that a testable statement or not? Is it a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as being from a scientist who “predicted that the north pole would be ice free now.”?

Statistics and probabilities apply ONLY to the set of outcomes from a large number of trials. The result of a single trial is meaningless, since the result can neither validate nor invalidate a statistical prediction. Let’s all agree to correctly use the language of statistics when making or assessing these climate predictions.

For example, a climate scientist might predict that, “Over the next 10 years, there is a 50% probability that the Arctic ice will melt completely in any particular summer”. Then we can observe the degree of ice melt over a 10-year period, and assess the validity of the prediction (to a specific level of confidence, if we assume a Gaussian distribution).

And yes, it would be quite helpful if the science writers at respected newspapers took an introductory course in the terminology of statistics, so the science writers could insist that predictions (quotes by climate scientists) conform to this terminology.

To all the people who don’t understand how odds work, or who are deliberately misunderstanding scientists because they are ideologically committed to stupidity, please consider this question again: if I say that Lewis Hamilton has a 50-50 chance of winning the European Grand Prix, and he doesn’t, was I right or was I wrong?

Just like you can’t take a 30 year period like 1970-2000 and measure “climate change”.

The Believers of the Great Church of WARMongering believe it.

Al Gore believes.

The International Environmental Industry has flogged it into the most successful fund raising scheme they have ever invented to remove money from the pockets of those who want to buy some indulgences for their guilt.

But all is well. You can Believe the Models, or you can believe the data, but you can’t believe both.

I’m gonna trust the data.

My advice – buy some long underwear ’cause its getting cold and it is going to get colder.

It’s the sulfur, stupid.