This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
It’s perfectly simple. You make observations. You create a hypothesis based on them. You make predictions from that hypothesis. If your predictions are accurate, the hypothesis stands, subject to further continual tests. If they prove false, the hypothesis falls. See, for example
I completely agree that it is simple. When I try to elicit the observations that would disprove the hypothesis I get moving targets. The observation might negate one of the models being used, but there are 60 models out there and the advocate switches the model he is defending without so much as a blink of an eye.
Your collection of things caused by global warming should be an eye opener to any person reading it. Basically there is no observation that can refute the hypotheses they put forward.
As you have also noted though, there is a concerted campaign to discredit anyone who disagrees.
My credentials are called into question as soon as I post something. "Are you a climate scientist". It does not matter what my question or discussion is. It only matters what my credentials are.
I did finally get Phil Plait to recognize that Venus is not too hot because it has too much Carbon Dioxide (percent volume) but because it has too much Carbon Dioxide (total mass). He has used that analogy many times in the last several years. "We don't want to become like Venus".
We will see if he learned the lesson or if he will continue to use it. I have this suspicion that he will continue down the path of belief.....
In reply to Brad there is an very recent example of the 'moving targets' issue picked up by the "Tallbloke's Talkshop" blog. The UK Met Office has substantially revised downwards the projected global annual temperature graph up to 2020, with apparently no announcement of the revision.
Further to my previous post it looks like the BBC has now reported the Met Office's revised average annual global temperature forecast.
The change is attributed a new computer model called HadGEM3 which stands for the "Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 3", and this apparently differs from previous models in that it includes the NEMO ocean modelling framework, and CICE the Los Alamos sea ice model.
Presumably the previous forecast was carried out with HadGEM2.
My understanding of the "Scientific Method" as it currently exists:
Where I disagree with your depiction is where you have modify theory to fit data.
At least in "Climate Psience"™, that should be "Modify data to fit hypothesis".
You can see this in the USHCN where the purported temperature change since the LIA is almost identical to the sum of adjustments made.