What follows is a brief outline of my post above: I. points out incoherence. {first he says show it isn't happening, then he assumes it's happening but it sto

What follows is a brief outline of my post above: I. points out incoherence. {first he says show it isn't happening, then he assumes it's happening but it stops or reverses} II. you could show warming is not happening this way (data) III. if it was warming and then started reversing falsification might happen this way (new theory/model) IV. additional considerations about falsification