Why is Climate Change not a science?

Winter, 2006 through 2007: The United States experiences a bad round of winter storms, including one of the worst ice storms in recent memory. There was a brief warm spell, but mostly it was a normal to harsh winter. This, despite forecasters and global warming Chicken Littles everywhere predicting a mild, unseasonably warm and short winter. It was cold in October; here it is still cold and sleeting and snowing in April. Where's the warm weather the global warming nuts keep promising?

You see, what makes a good scientific theory: You may have heard in school what the scientific method is. The process is, first, you must observe what you are studying. You must meticulously record facts. Then, you must formulate an educated guess, a hypothesis, about the facts that would explain them. Now, you might have been told that a theory is a "hypothesis that fits the facts." That is not entirely true. Yes, technically it is, but at this stage you have just formed your hypothesis to fit the facts, and yet it doesn't automatically become a theory. What would be the point in the term hypothesis if it was so short lived and served no function?

What comes next, is to test the hypothesis in a novel and controlled experiment. You must devise some way to find out if your explanation predicts the outcome. If it can predict an outcome repeatedly, accurately, under varying conditions, and consistently, then and only then is it a theory. Further, theories are always subject to further modification if they fail to predict the future in a certain event. This is the scientific method.

Meteorology and climate science cannot do this with weather even a week in advance. Oh, they are kind of close quite often, but not repeatedly, accurately, under varying conditions, and consistently. They are way off more than they are right on. They have just about perfected predicting the weather about a day in advance, but no more than that. The Farmer's Almanac often does a better job, or people wouldn't still rely on it.

Now, on to the global warming hoax. This so called theory, never mind for a minute that it doesn't fit the facts, has yet to accurately predict the future. This, even though the Chicken Littles are predicting dire outcomes even hundreds of years into the future. Of course, there is no way to test this, we just have to wait and see, but they aren't even accurately predicting current weather. They do everything ex post facto. We have a bad hurricane, it's global warming. We have a few tornados, it's global warming. We have a tsunami, we knew it would happen, it's global warming.

This is actually related to a psychological phenomenon called hindsight bias. In hindsight bias research, you ask people how likely something is to happen. Before the event occurs they will give you a lower prediction than if you ask them after the event occurs how likely they thought the event would occur. You can even tell them about hindsight bias and they still do this.

The global warming alarmists are much like this. They cannot predict a single thing with their theory, but they can distort past events to make it seem like their theory predicted it. Of course, they won't talk about the harsh winter we are still having, except a few extreme ones that will even contort their explanations to include unusually cold weather into their ex post facto predictions. And, even worse, climate change "theory" is never subject to modification when it doesn't hold true, instead, the record is subject to modification to fit the theory when the theory doesn't hold true.