[jbattle]

I've never seen a climate scientist say that every change in temperature is linked solely to the effects of CO2 & etc. Everyone recognizes there are multiple drivers of fluctuating climate (e.g. el nino/la nina, solar cycles, natural CO2 spikes from volcanos, etc, etc, etc).

To jump back a few steps, I'd think that APGW could be falsified at least three ways.

1) From a top-down perspective, if warming over years & decades consistently decouples from models, then clearly the models are wrong. It's invalid to expect the models to be accurate month-by-month, that's not the granularity they are built to explore.

2) From a bottom-up perspective, if someone can establish on a theoretical basis that additional carbon dioxide & methane do not have a baseline or secondary warming effect, then we'd need a new theory to explain observations

3) If we see the regular surprise emergence of unexpected climate effects to the point where our models are invalid. I can't come up with a good example. Something like "Ocean water gets dramatically lighter above XX degrees, which vastly reduces the absorbtion of sunlight"