https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/happy-200th-b...
And much science passed that.
--Great essay.
If we want to falsify, we should ask questions like: Was there a time in the past when the atmosphere contained even more CO2 than it did now? What was the temp and did life survive?
What evidence or experiment would convince you the theory is false? Or is that impossible?
Do you believe that question isn't already asked and answered? Just going off the top of my head, I understand historical considerations to be a routine observation as part of your typical course or even presentation on the history of climate change. If you believe this counts, then your answer to your own question about the falsifiability of climate change is yes.
I also don't think that's the only kind of example - I think the routine things talked about on a day to day basis, including year by year and decade by decade temperature predictions would qualify, and these data are quite frequently discussed and quite visible.
I also also don't think the distinction between "evidence in favor" and "attempts to falsify" makes a whole lot of sense. These are two different sides of the same coin, and evidence in favor of something is the same as surviving a test of falsifiability.
Or demonstrate that convective phenomena aren't affected by changing temperature.
"Climate change" comprises a causal chain of well studied and testable hypothesis. Including disproving alternate hypothesis like "solar radiation is increasing".
The problem is climate change has become a motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy). If we do come up with evidence that rising temps aren't all that correlated to CO2, then we just change the target to 'yeah but it causes ocean acidification' or 'natural disasters are increasing' or 'yeah but it kills coral reefs'.
At this point, I'm not sure there is any possible experiment or evidence that would actually change most people's mind on climate change. It has become a cause to support rather than a theory.
> Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
> To estimate the integrity of temperature-proxy data, δ^18O values were averaged into bins of 2.5 million years (My)
It makes sense. Over long time scales, other factors are more important.
Does the same apply to shorter time scales, like thousands, hundreds, or tens of years?
> At this point, I'm not sure there is any possible experiment or evidence that would actually change most people's mind on climate change.
One possible way would be to continue releasing the CO2 at the current or larger rates. If then temperatures and the climate reverse to the state from 200 or 300 years ago then it means it's part of a natural cycle and humans had nothing to do with it.
Aren't you (your way of thinking about this) part of the problem here, or even the whole problem?
You've reduced climate change to politics - certainly there are many people (myself included) who don't agree that it is political.
There are people that say "we need to think about the climate" purely because they are liberal, but they can be ignored, and their views don't change the reality.
Some past short-term predictions, like predictions for 2020 made in 1990, may or may not be correct. We can look those up. Many other predictions are for what will happen in the coming decades, and we won't be able to assess with certainty whether they were correct until those future dates.
Do nothing and wait. But it could have severe consequences.
We've had scientists making predictions since the 80's, so we have some long term observations. I'll save you the read, historical models are fairly accurate and have become more accurate over time.
I'm not sure why anyone considers this a debate. It's not a debate. It's willingness to look at data or not.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...