[melling]

He’s offering innuendo.

Climate change deniers have a whole lot of it.

You don’t need to prove causality to throw a wrench in the argument.

Make a statement then say “prove me wrong”

[krona]

> Make a statement then say “prove me wrong”

Climatologists can make the same argument. There aren't many earth-like planets with which to conduct controlled experiments.

[smt88]

Yes, but a good way to verify climate science is to make surprising predictions and then see how accurate they are.

Climate scientists have made many such predictions starting in the 1970s. Exxon even had scientists in the 80's predicting climate change with surprising accuracy, and then they buried that research because it would hurt their business.

[krona]

I think you're confusing prophecy with the scientific prediction of a theory which can be replicated.

[legulere]

There are in the form of simulations. You can measure many effects like light absorption directly and put it in a simulation.

Discrepancies to reality can be investigated and used to make the model better.

You can then use the model to see how things would be with more or less CO2-emissions.

[krona]

Whether a model predicts the outcome of a simulation has no bearing in determining whether either correspond to a future reality.

Running a simulation might be useful for directing scientific research, but it is not science.