A theory was posited, and a testable prediction was made. Since the prediction was false, the theory should be critically examined. That's the scientific metho

A theory was posited, and a testable prediction was made. Since the prediction was false, the theory should be critically examined. That's the scientific method. A critical examination of the theory which produced the incorrect prediction seems to be missing. That's the point. It's not reasonable to point to partial fulfillment of the claim; if that was the standard of evidence, a perpetual motion enthusiast could reasonably point out that they almost broke even. From what I've understood, the reasonable arguments on either side boil down (heh) to the rate of change, because climate varies so much naturally and we seem to be accelerating it. If the rate is not what was predicted, that's a big deal and makes this failed prediction all the more relevant.