Bob posted
I'm also persuaded by the fact that this was all predicted before it
actually started being measurable. It is possible to dig out the
literature and confirm this with ones own eyes, and I'm not sure that
even TNP would argue that the global conspiracy began in the 60s.

But that too is a cherry-picking argument. From the myriad of
predictions made by climatologists in the 60s and 70s (many of which
predicted global *cooling*) you are picking out a few predictions that
turned out to be a reasonable match to what actually happened later, and
saying, "look, those models must be the ones that describe what's
actually going on".

Now I know the usual reply to this criticism is "well what else could
you possibly do when testing statistical hypotheses?" OK, maybe there
isn't anything else we could do, but that still doesn't make it a good
scientific method.

--
Les