I don't think that makes it strictly non-falsifiable, it just makes it a little fuzzier where you have to accept that there are too many variables to isolate, and you need to take clues and relative changes to be worth something even if there isn't a controlled scenario that science would prefer.
The worst part of climate change science isn't the uncertainty, it's the fact that any uncertainty will be grasped upon by the oligarchy to create FUD in favor of the status quo that generated their fortunes. That systemic bias could well be the end of the species as we are collectively unable to pull our heads out of our asses.
Ah, but it will also be grasped by researchers to create FUD in favor of sensationalism so they can get more grants and maybe become famous for Saving The World.
That systemic bias could well be the end of the species as we are collectively unable to pull our heads out of our asses.
Sure. Or equally unlikely, the opposite systemic bias causes the end of the species as a result of banning all effective telephone cleaning chemicals since they react with water to produce greenhouse gasses.
Or terror.
Can't be terror though.
You can't have a war against terror.
That's obvious.
Must be Terra then.
We surely aren't led by idiots.
After all.
I too am generally in favour of the world.
---
satellitecat:
Release the kittens.
I repeat:
Release all the kittens.
I think that given the physics, global warming is probably true. That said, one of the things I find annoying about it is that there are many good reasons not to burn stuff and global warming has all the focus.
How about building stuff like solar based electric transportation, just because our city atmospheres are killing people right now, never mind in several decades.
And this is the problem with those "a posteriori" explanations of the hiatus. They are saying that the models that predict a global warming catastrophe can't be wrong, instead of recognizing that the models lack predictive power and they must be adjusted. But if the models can't be wrong they are not science.
Who said that?
The incompleteness of climate models isn't something that has just come up recently - they have always been incomplete (they can't be anything but - 'all models are wrong') and that is well understood by anybody who develops or uses them. There are large sub-systems that global circulation models don't even really attempt to model at this stage. Others where they are widely recognised to do a very bad job (e.g. ice sheets). Others that are just modelled stochastically because we don't know how to predict those processes on a year to year basis (e.g. ENSO).
Finding inconsistencies between the models and reality is one of the ways that they are improved.
I don't know where you are getting these ideas about how climate modellers think, but they don't bare any relation to how climate models are actually developed.
If you are asking, why have they not thrown out our entire understanding of the climate system and started over, then I would argue that isn't a way to actually improve our understanding of the climate. We would be starting over every day. Out understanding clearly isn't all wrong. There are all sorts of other lines of evidence used to develop our understanding of the climate system. From things that are reproducible with simple experiments (or just application of basic physical laws), to things that have taken large investments and long term study to work out.
There can be all sorts of reasons that the model got it wrong (assuming it did, I don't think we really have enough evidence one way or the other yet for the idea proposed in the OP - it seems like a bit of a curve fitting exercise at the moment). Not only is our understanding of the systems incomplete, our measurements are incomplete as well (and that gets much worse even just a few years ago - we've only had the Argo network of floats taking ocean temperature for a bit over a decade for example). Often there is just as much reason to suspect that it's our measurements that are wrong than that it's our understanding of the system. It's just the nature of working on a system the size of the entire planet. It's not easy to measure everything, and ever harder to measure what was happening in the past. There have been real issues where it was the data that was wrong and not the models.
See the UAH troposphere temperature record for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_data... It contradicted other data sets and the models, and it turns out there were errors in the way the temperatures were calculated. That is a record run by scientists very much on the skeptic end of the spectrum by the way, if you were getting worried about any kind of conspiracy.