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.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: