Actually, we have and incredibly strong necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for lung cancer, which clearly excludes natural lung cancer formation in the vast majority of cases. We don’t have the same for climate science.
“If the glaciers if the world were to start growing or at least cease melting then that would be one observations.”
Glaciers melt even during natural global warming.
If the expanding of deserts such as the Sahara and Namib were to come to a halt or even regress then it would one more observation.
Deserts have been retreating. Since this is one of the observations you believe is necessary for your hypothesis, are you now willing to admit you were wrong?
The probability of all these events being coincidental is next to impossible they are too similar and are happening simultaneously.
Every time the globe naturally warms, you get melting glaciers and ice. Are you literally trying to say it is impossible for the globe to naturally warm?
You do realize that we’ve exited ice ages before humans ever existed, right?
So since we’ve eliminated the radiative output of the sun, the earth’s orbit, its axis that leaves us with the atmosphere.
And here’s where you lose the argument — simply excluding two things does not mean you’ve eliminated all things except the one you prefer.
If it were natural then the rise in temperature would more gradual and part of an ongoing trend.
We’ve been observing a warming globe since 1850. The vast majority of CO2 emissions by humans happened since 1950. The rise in temperature has been, over the past 100 years since 1917–2017, a gradual 0.8C.
So, again, your argument fails — temperature changes have been part of an ongoing trend, and gradual. Perhaps you’ve heard of “the pause” from 1998–2016, where CO2 emissions increased in the “business as usual” scenario, but temperatures had no significant trend?
Now I congratulate you for trying to fulfill the requirements of the scientific method, but it’s pretty obvious you’ve fallen short. At this point, you’ve got two responses:
- Admit error;
- Make up ad hoc special pleadings for your initial flawed argument.
Karl Popper, who wrote extensively about falsifiability, recognized response #2 as a sign of pseudo-science, used by astrologers to explain their predictive misses.
So what would you like to do? Admit that you have failed at coming up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and perhaps re-examine your beliefs, or will you try to make special excuses for the rebuttals to your claims?
