>Have you asked yourself the corresponding question?

Yes I have. There is in fact lots of things that would change my mind.

1. The laws of physics were proven to false and it turned out the CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere.

2. The sun was proven to be increasing significantly in solar output and this explained the warming we have seen to date.

3. The planet stopped warming and started cooling.

4. The source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere was found to not be the result of burning fossil fuels.

5. We had highly predictive and accurate models that showed that warming via the accumulation of CO2 is not possible.

Is there any evidence that if you became aware of would change your mind?

>"1. The laws of physics were proven to false and it turned out the CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere."

Most skeptics agree that CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere. By itself, a doubling of CO2 should cause about 1 degree of warming.

But climate models say a doubling of CO2 will cause anywhere from 2 to 12 degrees of heating.

So you can be a climate skeptic without breaking any laws of physics. Climate "sensitivity" estimates are highly uncertain and are all over the map. Most of the predicted warming is due to climate "sensitivity" estimates, not CO2 directly.

>"2. The sun was proven to be increasing significantly in solar output and this explained the warming we have seen to date."

We do know the planet was warming before CO2 could have had any significant effect. If there were some change in solar radiation in the past it would take time for the earth to warm and come to a point of equilibrium. There is nothing ruling out this possibility.

>"3. The planet stopped warming and started cooling."

There has been no statistically significant warming for over 22 years according to satellite data.

>"4. The source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere was found to not be the result of burning fossil fuels."

Highly unlikely.

>"5. We had highly predictive and accurate models that showed that warming via the accumulation of CO2 is not possible."

What if we could show that warming is increasing at a much lower rate than predicted by climate models?

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/christy_cmi...

We won't live to see any of those things happen except maybe number 3 (although it could be more specific, i.e. which data or index shows the cooling trend and for how long).

And I think you may have missed my point. The hypothetical evidence you listed is mostly "proof of X" and "confirmation of Y" which suggests we disagree about how science works. I'm of the opinion that science does not advance by proving new theories correct, it advances by proving old theories incorrect. A new theory that cannot itself be proven incorrect is not scientific. The empirical evidence you have suggested with number 3 is one possible way to falsify the AGW theory, but it is somewhat vague and might mean waiting for a long time. Additionally, without the AGW theory we have no good reason to expect either warming or cooling in particular, so either one is not what Popper called a "risky prediction".

I get the impression that you want me to go along with political action and engineering projects that I don't agree with. Perhaps you will continue to do so until some as yet unspecified temperature measurement shows a cooling trend for some as yet unspecified period of time, or we are both dead.

From my perspective the theory has not made any risky predictions, and that has to happen before we can speak of confirming it. The situation is fundamentally biased against the activist politics. Not surprisingly, lots of the same activists have been trying to declare Popper "obsolete" for some time. I encourage you to read his essay and consider for yourself:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.htm...

"Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory."

It is an interesting question though - what risky prediction can be or has been made based on the AGW theory? The "polar ice will disappear by X year" statements are the closest thing I can think of.

I agree with you that we are unlikely to see any of these things because having looked at the science it is as close to certain as we can be with any observation theory that AGW is true. We may be uncertain of what will actually happen and the scale (this is very scarily give we can’t rule out non-linearities), but it appear very, very unlikely that AGW is false.

By the way you are the first person to even make a half-hearted attempt to answer my original question. Do you want to make the “polar ice will disappear by x year” more precise?

> A new theory that cannot itself be proven incorrect is not scientific.

Why do you assume that it can not be proven incorrect?

Is that what you think I'm saying?

It may be hard to prove incorrect. There hasn't been much of an effort in my experience. Not the same thing.

A lot of effort has been put into trying to rule out AGW. The problem is everyone who has tried seriously has failed to do so. If any of the things I listed were found to be true then the AGW theory would be false.

So, let me try to understand your position.

You don´t think that it is incorrect because nobody has tried too hard to prove it incorrect?