So, in general, the failure of a specific prediction from x theory does not in general invalidate the theory, in this case because all of the failed models depe

So, in general, the failure of a specific prediction from x theory does not in general invalidate the theory, in this case because all of the failed models depend on other assumptions than anthropogenic global warming. This is not because of any limitation of AGW but because climate forecasting is hard and any attempt to predict the goddamn future is going to require a lot of assumptions about a lot of things that can't be predicted (chaps theory). That's okay, because AGW is not based on climate models in the first place, but on a first-principles understanding of radiative forcing and a very well-established "fossil record" of old temperatures. Repeat after me: AGW is not a climate model. Simply put, there is no precedent in the entire history of the planet Earth for overall heating as pronounced and rapid as the past 100 years of AGW. There are really only two possibilities: either humans are responsible for basically all of the heating, or there is a giant demon who is trying to stir-fry the human race. So if you think that the recent warming is not anthropogenic... find Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis, fast.