In science, one failed result shows a theory is wrong. Is this true with the "science" of "global warming"?

Question

Or does so-called "global warming" need as many tries to pass just because we need to show it's real?

Today the IPCC's scientific calculations faild to show that we passed yet another tipping point. So far, thei is the 63rd tipping point passed in the last 10 years.

With this failure, does this prove that global warming is a failed theory, or that we just need more time to rig the tests to get the desired outcomes?

Answer 1

Global Warming is a failed theory that has evolved into a POLITICAL issue----Socialists and Communists, after the fall of the USSR, tended to flock to the "Environmental fields" As in it they saw opportunity to assert the CONTROL over people and the economy they craved, by frightening the population into accept their draconian laws and other "Socialist" principles in order to "Save the environment"

Politicians too saw the "Scare value" in ginning up votes, by "promising " to "Do Something" before it is too late.

Many Scientists, too have an interest., SOME are known Socialist activists, and others receive big GRANT MONEY to find support "global warming" from the politicians.



When the theory fell apart some 20 years ago, the interested parties above continued to "prop it up", and "fiddle with data", no matter what the "evidence".--The Socialists refused to give up their dreams of domination, the Politicians did not want to lose their power and the Scientists did not want to give up their grant money----So the Global Warming debate goes on today---despite the fact MOST Scientists think a COOLING period is in our future--or even another Ice Age cycle.

Answer 2

In science, one failed result DOES NOT show a theory is wrong. The result must be confirmed by other experimenters. Even if confirmed, the result can itself be questioned and explained, or the theory can be refined.



As for global warming, this is similar to making weather forecasts. Just because weather cannot be predicted reliably more than 3 days ahead, and even within 3 days the forecasts are sometimes wrong, does not disprove the theory being used.

Answer 3

It is more like whack-a-mole. They present one scare story, and skeptics have to go into detail to show it is wrong. Then they jump to the next scare story. Ocean acidification, hurricanes, droughts, icebergs breaking off in Antarctica, etc.

There was a book titled 100 authors against Einstein. Einstein replied that I am wrong, then one author should have been enough.

The models have clearly failed, yet instead of declaring the theory wrong, they have chosen to either declare the data wrong, or to declare there has been no failure even with the existing data. In the latest IPCC report, they took a spaghetti graph of all the models, found a few were kinda close and declared that the models had not failed, and they could continue to use the multi-model mean as valid. This is how they get to keep the 1.5-4.5C threshold, when it is really more like 1.2-2.0C

Answer 4

Please list the 63 tipping points or provide a link, if you don’t I’ll have to assume you’re making this up.



A failed result and a failed prediction are two very different things, particularly in science.



If you stood on top of a tall building and dropped a sheet of paper there’s a good chance the wind would catch it and it would blow upwards, if your premise were correct this would disprove gravity.



A prediction is subject to any number of unforeseen circumstances and variables which can influence the outcome. If the variable under test could be isolated and all other factors controlled, then you can go beyond making a prediction; this isn’t possible with climates and some predictions are bound to be wrong. This does not mean the underlying theory has been falsified.

Answer 5

According to the warmers, it doesn't matter how many failed results there are. Nothing disproves their theory because they say so.

Answer 6

no