Phil Allison wrote:

"flipper"

I think it would come as a surprise to most people that, so called,
'global warming' (man induced) doesn't actually qualify as
a:"scientific theory" because people tend to mistakenly believe
anything, speculation included, that contains a bunch of 'numbers',
'data', and 'research' is automatically 'science'.

** AGW is a popular hypotheses about world climate - but certainly not a
coherent or established "theory " of this planet's future climate.

Especially agree on this point. The general public don't understand what a
theory is.


Try it. Next time you run across a 'global warming' advocate ask them
what testable criteria would disprove it. I'll wager the answer you'll
get is 'none' because, they'll argue, "it's a fact" (or claim a
"scientific consensus").

** Since AGW followers all say the planets' atmosphere is rapidly warming
p - an observed failure to do so in the next decade or so would be a major
blow for the hypothesis.

I wager the hard core would then claim that the predicted disaster it has
been "delayed" through their mighty efforts to alert everyone.

They can't lose.

Totally agree.

Graham