In the case of global warming, there is no observation, short of a computer model output (and there are so many variables in climate models, that we would suggest that the results are highly uncertain.)
Lacking a problem statement (to a rational degree of certainty), an hypothesis does not yet exist.
If oceans were really rising, or temps were climbing (outside of normal variation) anywhere near projections, well, then, maybe. But they are not, so it's not an hypothesis.
And, if there were such observations, then the problem would be more like "what is responsible for the temp increase?", as there might be more than one plausible explanation.
| I see: no actual observations, but only forecast computer models. Science seems to be treated so carelessly in our society that the public has no appreciation for the degree of accuracy. A few months back on FR I highlighted a year of horrendous predictions for the North American hurricane season. If the models of these "scientists" cannot reliably predict the number of hurricanes or major hurricanes only a few months out, how can they begin to tell us what average temperatures will be 70 years down the road? |