Is the Science behind Climate Change Real ?

Surely there is real science behind the claims made about Anthropogenic Climate Change. Anthropogenic means that it is man-made. Here are some pages showing this science in action.

We should expect real solid science behind this. But is the science in fact a little flaky?

• Comparing carbon dioxide levels to the Pliocene era

What Real Science Looks Like

Real science is a method, not a body of opinion. Whatever the subject, a sound piece of science has the same features.

• It makes risky predictions. A real theory says in advance what will happen, and accepts being wrong if it does not.
• It can be repeated. The data and methods are published in full, so that anyone, including critics, can check the work and get the same answer.
• It is honest about uncertainty. Results come with error margins, and the limits of the measurements are stated plainly.
• It separates cause from coincidence. Two things rising together does not mean one causes the other.
• It welcomes challenge. A strong result survives attack. A weak one needs protecting from it.

Questions the Science Should Answer

If the case for man-made climate change rests on real science, it should be able to give clear, checkable answers to questions such as these:

• How do today’s carbon dioxide levels and temperatures compare with past eras, such as the Pliocene, when there were no humans burning fuel?
• How much of any warming is due to natural cycles, and how much to people?
• How accurate were temperatures measured a hundred years ago, and how have they been adjusted since?
• How well have the forecasts of twenty or thirty years ago matched what actually happened?

If the answers are solid, the science is real. If they are vague, shifting or unavailable, it is worth asking why. Compare the hallmarks of pseudo science.