Astronomy is an ideal example for IPCC and climate "science" to consider in its future development as science.

Astronomy first FITS the past, before attempting to predict the future. It can thereafter reverse-engineer the past (e.g. identify positions of stars 10,000 years ago). When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory, his argument was that the sun-centric model was the best fit for past observations.

We now have reliable climate data for the past 2000 years, and robust climate data that goes back 600 million years.

So before babbling any further, let climate science first PERFECTLY fit this past data (by having its theories precisely "predict" it). Thereafter let it PERFECTLY fit climate data for the past 50 years.

Once that has been done, THEN it should try to predict the next 10 year's data.

And confirm a 100 per cent fit.

Only once its data-fitting capacities have been mastered, will it qualify as SCIENCE.

Till then it is merely climate hypothesis at best; quackery at worst. 

It can convince the ignorant and the politicians, but not anyone who understands REAL science.

Related posts:

1. The most damning thing about IPCC is that ASSUMES that mankind is guilty, BEFORE starting its analysis
2. David vs Goliath: Climate change ‘sceptics’ vs IPCC and world governments
3. Sea levels have been constant for the past eight years but CSIRO is creating panic in Australia
4. Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
5. The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
6. A proposal to replace IPCC with a genuine independent process that will tell us THE truth
7. If you care about your future, please buy and read The Delinquent Teenager by Donna Laframboise
8. CO2 could make our super-rich future generations slightly worse off!
9. Could any half-wit have done FAR better than IPCC?
10. Thirty per cent of IPCC citations are NOT peer-reviewed