The difference between real, hard science and non-science is that real science consists of theories and laws that can be empirically verified. Here is how: a truly scientific assertion generates predictions which can be compared to actual data collected after the prediction and which can be used to confirm or falsify the prediction.
The Global Warming Alarmists claim that AGW (anthopogenic global warming) is scientifically "proven." But the predictions made on the basis of the theory have not come true, so in an a version of the old shell game the shift is being made from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change," which is, when you think carefully about it, not falsifiable. As long as the climate changes, "Climate Change" is proven. How can that not happen? Global Warming has been dropped like a hot potato because it is too precise and can be refuted by facts, so "Climate Change" suits the purpose much better.
Richard North at EU Referendum provides the relevant data which shows why "Global Warming" has proven so embarrassing that the global governance, neo-Marxists have largely abandoned it overnight. He writes:
The foolish Moonbat, along with his colleagues is plumbing new depths of stupidity, insisting in the loathsome Guardian that the "unusually cold winters" are caused by global warming.North goes on to document in painstaking detail how adamant the AGW Alarmists were in insisting on the "fact" that warmer winters prove AGW and how we were in for much warmer winters in the future.
It is not that he does not have a case (even if it is not very good). What makes him so deservedly look the fool it that he, alongside the climate establishment, has spent the last decade or more trying to convince us that milder winters are a sure sign of global warming. Now, in the manner of Winston Smith, Moonbat seems to believe that he can rewrite history and we will not notice.
The problem for him is that the global warming industry has been so unequivocal in its certainty that milder winters were a sign of climate change. On 4 June 1999, for instance, Science Daily was reporting on a Nature paper, stating that a team of scientists from Columbia University had shown that warm winters in the northern hemisphere "likely can be explained by the action of upper-atmosphere winds that are closely linked to global warming".
For example, check out this article from The Independent with the headline: "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past." It was written in March of 2000.
Donna Laframboise explains why people like Richard North and James Delingpole are so mean to George Monbiot, the environmental writer for The Guardian. It isn't because poor old George was wrong; it is because he won't admit he was wrong and tries to brazen though all the dis-confirming evidence to assert that, no matter what the temperature is we have to have global governance and wealth redistribution in the name of fighting AGW. As long as he does this, he is going to face the following type of aggravation from Laframboise:
Similarly, George Monbiot’s 2006 book was titled Heat. Its subtitle was not: How to Stop the Planet from Freezing. Rather, it insisted the planet was in danger of burning. A year earlier, in a Guardian newspaper column, Monbiot told readers that “The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are…unlikely to recur.”
As the final two weeks of 2010 count down, reality is not being kind to these prognosticators. Instead of sugar dustings of snow and mild temperatures, many parts of the world are in the grip of another unusually harsh winter:
The question we are left with is this: if AGW is not science, what is it? I suppose the kindest answer is a weird combination of urban legend, modern cult and neo-Marxist front organization. In any case, it is over as far as reasonable people are concerned.