If you dispute the inflated and inconsistent claims of global warming alarmists, you are denounced as anti-science. You may even find yourself under investigation. But is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming actually a scientific theory at all?

A fundamental principle of science is that a theory, to have any significance, must be falsifiable. Science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis, and figuring out what the hypothesis implies. Scientists then make real-world observations to determine whether the theory’s implications do, in fact, obtain. They look for implications that are specific to the theory, so that, for example, it doesn’t work to say: If this theory is valid, the sky will be blue. Voila! Any theory can be consistent with countless facts, but if it implies a prediction that is falsified by observation, the theory is wrong. Period.

Also: a model is not evidence. A model is a theory. Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.

This is so elementary that it shouldn’t need to be explained. But apparently, America’s public schools are not teaching the scientific method. Otherwise, how to explain the Green New Deal?

The alarmists’ predictions of rapidly rising global temperatures have repeatedly failed to come true, which is why the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dramatically scaled back its predictions of future temperature increases a few years ago. Thus, the alarmists shifted to “climate change,” a hopelessly flexible concept that can be assigned to any untoward weather event.

When the polar vortex brought temperatures of 20 below zero to the Twin Cities last week, some alarmists–those who didn’t politely remain silent–assured us that bitter cold temperatures were caused by global warming, via the Arctic. This was only days after a climate “expert” testified before a Minnesota legislative committee that “scientists” no longer expect Duluth, Minnesota, to see temperatures colder than 10 degrees. At that moment, temperatures of -25 to -30 degrees were just outside the 10-day forecast for Duluth.

But being a global warming alarmist means never having to say you’re sorry. Why recant, when billions of government dollars continue to flow, no matter how many wrong predictions you make? So far, the leftist alarmists have had the last laugh: consistently wrong, but never in doubt. And still lavishly funded.

This video by the Clear Energy Alliance explains in entertaining fashion why the political global warming theory is not scientific: