No. And, this is one of the characteristics of the movement which reveal that 'climate science' has largely become an oxymoron.
Within the confines of the scientific method, it is the responsibility of the one promoting the hypothesis to prove that the data reject the null hypothesis in a statistically significant way. To hold the detractors responsible for *disproving* a hypothesis is the fallacy of 'shifting the burden of proof'. That is the stuff of pseudoscience, frauds, and hoaxes.
Dr. Armstrong found that the climate models fail in forecast and hindcast, and, using real-world data, show errors 12 times greater than a straight-line, no-change model. Dr. T is still searching for the missing heat. The missing hotspot still refuses to become hot. The rates of sea level rise are not significantly different than existed before the modern rise of CO2 emissions. The radiosonde data and the satellite data are not consistent with the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to predictions, the frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes are all down.
Laughably, one of the alarmists posting here maintains that 30 years of cooling would cause him to question not the AGW hypothesis, but the scientific method itself!
If someone promoting an investment vehicle did this, they would do 10 years in the slammer.
To dismiss the scientific theory of humans having a net effect on climate change evidence would have to be found that explains the current warming trend.
The global temperature is DATA, not the science. The science explains the DATA. That is, even if the temperatures drop for the next 30 years, that does not explain the extended warming trend that has occurred up to that point. SCIENCE is about finding the why? Why did the temperature rise?
If temperatures suddenly dropped for 30 years, then investigations would be undertaken to determine why (that is the science behind the DATA).
Most people know that many trees lose their leaves in Autumn and Winter (this is DATA) ... but the science provides the reason for this (this is the SCIENCE). If trees didn't lose their leaves SCIENCE would investigate the why (that doesn't however dismiss the science for why trees lose leaves).
The one reason to believe that the climate change theory is wrong would be if additional carbon dioxide had much less impact on temperatures than what we have already added. Basically, the effect of carbon dioxide would have to be saturated. If temperatures were to drop over the next 30 years, something else other than carbon dioxide, such as volcanoes or a Maunder Minimum. I would consider such a drop in temperatures over 30 years to be very unlikely. However, it would be more likely if the "climate change" theory had a flaw, such as carbon dioxide sensitivity being low or carbon dioxide effect being saturated. But don't hold your breath.
Edit
Would we still have to explain the past 30 years of warming? That would depend on whether we could explain the cooling. If we can identify the cause of the cooling and what we identify can also explain the warming, then we will have explained the warming. If we do not identify the cause of the cooling, if the cooling is "mysterious" we would have to admit that we really do not understand what caused the warming either. If we can identify the cause of the cooling and it does not explain the warming, such as if the cooling were due to high volcanic or low solar activity, then carbon dioxide will still be the most likely explanation for the warming.
Sure. All you need to do is simply disprove any of the following. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) or that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere.
not necessarily. if the explanation was a massive volcanic eruption or more dust emissions of Coal plants that were masking the underlying greenhouse effect, then the theory would still hold.
The exaggeration is mostly in the deniers- that the world economy would collapse if we reduced emissions. Sorry, wall street does that nicely without ay greenies helping.
Climate has and will always continue to change.
Climate alarmism is used to advance international political agendas.
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO): “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Maurice Strong: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
Richard Benedick: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
Christine Stewart: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Mikhail Gorbachev: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Jacques Chirac: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
Jonathan Overpeck: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Phil Jones: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”
Stephen Schneider: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Peter Thorne: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
No nothing, because (excepting brainwashed schoolkids) most of them already know it's a lie and a scam. How could they not ? It's obvious isn't it ? I mean the science is so poor it's easily debunked by a bright high schooler.
They already know it's a lie, but they promote it for other reasons, either political, ideological or financial reasons.
it's a waste of time trying to educate these fascists, what we need to do is figure out how to fight them.
I would suggest that if it were observed that atmospheric CO2 started showing a rise in C13 : C12 ratios (compared with current atmospheric ratios) it would seriously question our entire understanding of human caused climate change, perhaps terminally
Of course the chorus line of simpletons from the denier industry who post here would have no idea what that means
You partially answered your own question. It would take evidence. I know that evidence is a foreign and irrelevant concept to Deniers, but it still counts in the reality-based world.
If there was a 30-year decline in temperature, however, that would raise a different set of questions, such as: Have the physics of our universe changed? What has caused the apparent change in the physics of our universe? Is there a flaw in the scientific method?
=====
James --
How would an ice age disprove AGW? They are two different phenomena that are caused by different processes - processes that scientists and educated people understand and that you, obviously, do not.
----
Moe --
Give one example of that - I mean about scientists - we already have plenty of examples of you lying.
An explanation. A theory that explains all observations. Right now, after extensive scientific research, AGW is the only theory that can explain what is happening.
You seem to be wholly unaware of how science works and how theories are developed and tested. You likely equally unaware of what we know about climate. Your ignorance does not change what humanity now knows.
I can't really think of anything that would. Let's say global temperatures went down over the next 30 years. Would that convince them that Global Warming had been exaggerated?
No. Not even an ice age would disprove global warming to an alarmist. They create theorectical paradoxes to explain the differences in outcomes between real world observation and predictions from computer generated climate change theory.
No natural variability is the response given for failed predictions.
