Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: Predictions Can Never Be Falseifiable

Why? Because this is what passes for science these days, at least when it comes to the Warmist version of climatology. Which might be why we get something like this

Climate change predictions can be scary for kids. What can you say?

Predictions for a planet affected by climate change can sound like they’re ripped from a doomsday novel: stronger hurricanes, intense heat waves, rising sea levels and the disappearance of ice in the Arctic.

And scientists have seen some of those changes already taking place, according to NASA.

Climate change — as well as other environmental issues like deforestation and wildlife extinction — have the potential to be scary for children. The implications of climate change can contribute to stress, depression and anxiety for everyone, but especially for kids, according to a study released this year by the American Psychological Association, Climate for Health and EcoAmerica.

Which leads to what they think parents, and especially teachers, who have long hours 5 days a week to indoctrinate should say. So, let’s move on to Mr Hockey Schtick himself as he writes at Foreign Affairs (behind the paywall) (via Climate Depot)

Oren Cass argues that the worrying predictions of mainstream climate science are overblown (“The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing,” March 21). But rather than assessing the legitimate range of views regarding climate change, Cass marshals a series of fallacies in an apparent effort to justify a fossil fuel-friendly agenda of inaction.

The clearest signs of trouble in Cass’ essay are rhetorical. By referring to mainstream climate scientists as “catastrophists,” Cass suggests that he is more interested in scoring political points than in engaging with the science surrounding climate change. It is true that the projected effects of unmitigated warming might objectively be characterized as catastrophic. If anything, however, scientists have been overly conservative in their assessments, tending to understate the actual threat posed by climate change—the very opposite of catastrophism. What’s more, the label creates a straw man: in Cass’ argument, “the catastrophist” is an amalgamation of perspectives set up for the purpose of being knocked down.

So, the more doomsaying the better, which moves to

“Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”

So, if my computer models (me doodling in Microsoft Paint) show that the Earth is going to enter a new Little Ice Age in 2050 so there’s no need to spend trillions of Other People’s money, well, then, we just have to wait, right? Right?