> Climate change can hardly be called a science by the way. To be a science you need to make falsifiable claims. It certainly does. - The increase in global a

> Climate change can hardly be called a science by the way. To be a science you need to make falsifiable claims. It certainly does. - The increase in global average temperatures is correlated to water vapor - The increase in global average temperatures is correlated to methane - The increase in global average temperatures is correlated to CO2 Another example: - "there has been an increase in global average temperature" These are all falsifiable assertions and have been given due attention. I would be really skeptical of a perspective that claims climate change makes no falsifiable claims. > Without the ability to experiment, all you are doing is fitting some gigantic models to some historical data, and we all know how bad this can go. Fitting a gigantic model to historical data is a form of experimentation. A hypothesis is in some ways the act of creating a model to fit data and then to use that model as a tool for predictions. Fitting a gigantic model to historical data and seeing how it goes is exactly an experiment!