A while back I tried to actually understand the science of global warming.
The "science" is not science – in my opinion – it’s statistical modeling. Statistical modeling is very different than science. If they were the same things, our large banks would be solvent. I spend a fair amount of time analyzing the models at the largest banks – perhaps the only models more complex than the climate models. By all rights, the climate models should be much less rigorous than the global warming models – after all, banks are betting the house on the models. If the climate models are worse than the banking models, then they’re less than worthless. But I digress . . .
The "science" of global warming makes specific claims: 1) global temperatures will increase gradually over time; and 2) these increases will be more pronounced in extreme latitudes.
Thus, condition 1) implies that we would not be able to determine if global warming is happening until we have temperature data many many years into the future. In other words, if someone actually believes in the "science" of global warming, he’d never write anything like this.