[jaggs]

The IPCC does not make predictions. Never has, never will. The whole point, which real climate scientists repeat as nauseum, is we can never know absolutes because of the huge number of variables and timeframes. So what they do instead is provide scenarios. And each scenario has a series of weightings or probabilities. The summaries spell these out in rough terms, the full reports go into intricate detail and sources. If you spend the time to read the summaries you will find a good number of scenarios which are currently playing out as we speak.

[nostrebored]

Thousands of researchers making predictions with ever shifting probabilities is what you call unfalsifiable.

The predictions we’re talking about play out over decades. The sources cite other predictions. It’s a feedback loop of assumptions and peer review from people who you know already share the same assumptions.

Climate science is much more akin to sociology than a hard science.

[adrianN]

Except climate science has tons and tons of hard data that the models need to agree with to be publishable, whereas sociology has questionnaires administered to a group of 20 sociology students.

[nostrebored]

Making a model that agrees with historical data is literally the base case for modeling. Like it is a feature of all forecasting solutions