Climate projections cannot be validated
Claudia Tibaldi and Reto Knutti (2007): “Skill and reliability are assessed by repeatedly comparing many independent realizations of the true system with the model predictions through some metric that quantifies agreement between model forecasts and observations (e.g. rank histograms). For projections of future climate change over decades or longer, there is no verification period, and in a strict sense there will never be any, even if we wait for a century...climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes.”
“Most models agree reasonably well with observations of the present-day mean climate and simulate a realistic warming over the Twentieth Century (of course, the specific performance depends on each model/metric combination), yet their predictions diverge substantially for the Twenty-First century, even when forced with the same boundary conditions.” - Claudia Tobaldi and Reto Knutti
In other words, there is no scientific theory of a climate climate change because you cannot validate the model.
Climate change lacks the groundwork to be called scientific and many scientists have pointed this out.
Post-hoc generalizations have no functional meaning. If you can’t predict anything with your ‘theory’, how can you predict what the engineering or political actions would do?
Climate projections cannot be validated Claudia Tibaldi and Reto Knutti (2007): “Skill and reliability are assessed by repeatedly comparing many independent realizations of the true system with the model predictions through some metric that quantifies agreement between model forecasts and observations (e.g. rank histograms). For projections of future climate change over decades or longer, there is no verification period, and in a strict sense there will never be any, even if we wait for a century...climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes.”
“Most models agree reasonably well with observations of the present-day mean climate and simulate a realistic warming over the Twentieth Century (of course, the specific performance depends on each model/metric combination), yet their predictions diverge substantially for the Twenty-First century, even when forced with the same boundary conditions.” - Claudia Tobaldi and Reto Knutti
In other words, there is no scientific theory of a climate climate change because you cannot validate the model.
Climate change lacks the groundwork to be called scientific and many scientists have pointed this out.
Post-hoc generalizations have no functional meaning. If you can’t predict anything with your ‘theory’, how can you predict what the engineering or political actions would do?