What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted?
Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. reports on his webpage that he recently reviewed a paper that had the following assertion, “A global climate model that does not simulate current climate accurately does not necessarily imply that it cannot produce accurate projections.” (!)
This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
“Science deniers,” meanwhile, are caught in the tired, stale ideas of the past. Everybody just knows that we must act now to avert a global warming crisis, so why do deniers cling to such outdated notions as testing a theory against real-world observations, and forcing scientists to explain any discrepancies between their theories and reality? Heck, if they are going to force us to do that, they might as well force us to prove that the earth is not flat.
As Pielke commented about the new tactic, “[I]f a global climate model cannot simulate current climate, as well as changes in the climate system accurately, it cannot produce accurate projections of the climate in the coming decades.”