Global Warming too hot/cold: Does it follow scientific method and allow for proving false?

If extreme heat is caused by global warming and extreme cold is caused by global warming does that allow for scientific method? Can such an argument be proven false as scientific method demands? If so how?Global Warming too hot/cold: Does it follow scientific method and allow for proving false?
No it does not follow scientific method, it follows consensus politics and legalistic emotive peer review. it is based on saint Augustine's religious concept of original sin, where all of humanity is born sinful because they are born of woman. And they must accept their guilt and no longer have children unless they are of the divine royal elites!Global Warming too hot/cold: Does it follow scientific method and allow for proving false?
It's a difficult theory to prove false because it's dealing with such a vast, chaotic system. Just as it's difficult to falsify the theory of Solar dominated climate - it doesn't mean that solar forced climate is unscientific.





A climate model that can fully explain observed temperature changes from natural sources would be a good first step to disproving AGW theory.





Alternatively, you could disprove Planck's Law or show that the absorption bands of CO2 are way outside the emission range of the Earth. Or disprove the first or second laws of thermodynamics or other principles that climate models rely on. Then you have to prove that these changes in our understanding change the modelled cause of warming.





Either of those would be a serious step to 'falsifying' AGW theory.








Ben O: Why do you believe the 'political left' have so much more money and power over scientists than the political right and the world's fossil fuel companies? The Bush administration was hardly on the 'political left', was the world's largest funder of climate science %26amp; ended up having to suppress the results their scientists came up with because it didn't agree with their anti-AGW politics[1].
You're confusing short term weather events with climate. Having short term weather events that are cold or hot is meaningless, as far as the subject of climate change is concerned. Only long term trends of rising/lowering global average temperatures and rising/lowering of greenhouse gases are useful.





A report was put out last Summer called ';Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate';, that might help answer your question. The first summary paragraph is:





';Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing. For example, in recent decades most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense. Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions, though there are no clear trends for North America as a whole. The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades, though North American mainland land-falling hurricanes do not appear to have increased over the past century. Outside the tropics, storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are becoming even stronger.';
Hey hippie, It's not called Global Warming any more. It's called Climate Change, now that it's trending colder. But It's still George W Bush's fault.
No, the public sentiments expressed by members of the Royal Society and others to disrupt the funding to 'the denial industry' means that AGW should not be regarded as science so much as politics.





There's no room in climate change research for skeptics as the political left is only interested in funding ever more alarmist research.





(edit) Actually MTR student you are well behind the times. No climate scientists are claiming the enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 is significant and instead have some incomplete theories about how maybe radiative transfer only works in one direction or maybe there is a magical layer of molecules surrounding the earth.





The physics of the enhanced greenhouse effect have been well understood since the 1950's and they are the reason why the comming ice age alarmists dismissed the warming effect of CO2 as being insignificant during the 1970's.





The current crop of computer models don't use real physical properties, but assign CO2 a global warming potential in order to predict warming. You can have faith in garbage in garbage out computer models if you like, but I have more confidence in physics.