/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6593026
>models don't work
nope, you are completely wrong.

>>6582149
cont

>>6571534
The models didn't fail as long as you don't cherry pick your data. Why only satellite data which is in extreme tension with other methods? Why no experimental or model confidence intervals so that we could actually judge for ourselves if the predictions have failed? You cannot simply look at two lines and say "false" you have no idea what the statistical significance of the disagreement is without confidence intervals. Because the graph is misleading and intentionally so.

> causally connected to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly differentiated from normal climate variability
Define normal climate variability.

>Give a plausible falsifiability criterion for Climate Change theory. An unfalsifiable theory is not scientific.
Climate change is not a theory, it is a collection of models and observations. Models can be falsified ideas cannot, similarly you cannot tell me what the falsifiability criterion is for "normal climate variation" cause it doesn't exist. The idea that this makes it unscientific is false, few ideas can be falsified.

pls